Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that positive reply. Is he aware that some 10 gas storage projects, including the Caythorpe project in east Yorkshire, which is an important one, are going through laborious planning processes, and have been doing so for some time? According to what he said, will these be expedited under the new planning proposals? Does he agree that, at 4 per cent of annual capacity, gas storage is much lower here than it is on the Continent, which is normally about 16 per cent? In view of the likelihood of serious interruptionsto the supply, despite the increase in pipeline connections with the Continent and Norway, is it not a matter of considerable urgency that we should increase our gas storage to avoid major crises, particularly in winter?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, clearly this country has moved from a position of very great security for supply when we had our indigenous resources in the North Sea. Because we have moved to being dependent on imports, we must have due regard to who will be the suppliers. We must ensure that the market works successfully and must increase significantly our gas storage capacity, because we need wider margins. On the Russian Federation and the president, for18 months or two years, there were very real anxieties. However, the whole of Europe has very great interest in the security of supply from Russia and, of course, it is in Russia's interest to sell its energy production, the basis of which is effective bargaining. The noble Lord will recognise that we are past the stage where we will ever again be able to look to purely British indigenous supplies for energy in this country, if we ever could entirely.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the survey will look at workforce issues. The statistics that Ihave show that in 1997 around 3,742 whole-time-equivalent speech therapists were working in the NHS. The latest census, which was conducted in 2006, shows that the number is 5,149, which is an increase of over 37 per cent.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to point to the importance of scanning. There has been an increase in the number of scanners and the figures that I have for 2006 show that 59 per cent of patients referred for an emergency CT scan had one within 24 hours, which is up from51 per cent in 1998. But I accept that there is more to do. The report of Professor Boyle, the national clinical director, published about a year ago, stressed the importance of this and the strategy will contain further details.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I thankthe noble Lord for the constructive remarks at the beginning of his question, and I agree with him on the latter part of his question. The Government have a substantial amount of work to do with new parents, which is why we give a 12-month period before requiring take-up. Even if take-up has not occurred then, the Government will make their contribution at the end of the year. However, that contribution will mean little unless the parents are also encouraged to contribute to the savings scheme. We have a great deal to do. As I think we are all aware, financial literacy in this country is much lower than we want. It is demonstrated by the relatively limited take-up among certain sections of our community.

Lord Morris of Handsworth: My Lords, does the Minister agree that employers' contributions to pension funds are generally seen as deferred earnings? Will he therefore comment on the negative impact on pension funds caused by a number of employers taking pension holidays and refusing to contribute to their funds? Will he further say whether the withdrawal of the tax credit had the support of the CBI?

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that it was a legal requirement that employers took pension holidays when certain conditions were fulfilled and not a question of employers choosingto take them, which implies that they voluntarily weakened their pension schemes?

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House later today a Statement on the planning White Paper will be repeated by my noble friend Lady Andrews at a convenient time after 3.30 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The page and line references are to HL Bill 42 as first printed for the Lords.]
	MOTION A
	Before Clause 42, insert the following new Clause—
	"Community restorative justice schemes
	(1) The Secretary of State shall maintain a public register of accredited community restorative justice schemes.
	(2) Accredited community restorative justice schemes shall be inspected regularly by the Criminal Justice Inspectorate, which shall report on such inspections to the Secretary of State who shall publish a report.
	(3) A report under subsection (2) may make such recommendations as to the conduct of a scheme as the Criminal Justice Inspectorate thinks fit.
	(4) If the Criminal Justice Inspectorate considers that a scheme is unsatisfactory or is operating in an unsatisfactory manner, it may recommend to the Secretary of State that it be removed from the register."
	The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No. 3, but propose Amendment No. 3A in lieu—
	Before Clause 42, insert the following new Clause—
	"Accredited community-based restorative justice schemes
	(1) The Secretary of State shall maintain a register of schemes that appear to him—
	(a) to be community-based restorative justice schemes, and(b) to meet requirements determined and published by him.
	(2) The requirements shall include a requirement about cooperation with the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland.
	(3) The Secretary of State shall add a scheme to the register if—
	(a) a person applies for the scheme to be added, and(b) the Secretary of State thinks that the scheme is a community-based restorative justice scheme which meets the requirements.
	(4) The Secretary of State may remove a scheme from the register if, having considered any report about the scheme made by the Chief Inspector, he thinks that—
	(a) it is not a community-based restorative justice scheme, or(b) it does not meet the requirements.
	(5) The Chief Inspector may inspect a scheme which is registered or which is the subject of an application for registration; and—
	(a) he shall from time to time make a report to the Secretary of State on inspections carried out by him by virtue of this section, and(b) section 49(2) to (4) of the Justice (Northern Ireland)Act 2002 (c. 26) (laying of Chief Inspector's reports before Parliament etc) shall apply in relation to the report.
	(6) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for inspection of the register by the public."

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move Motion A, that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 3 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3A.
	We have discussed these issues at some length and remain of the view that a lot more unites than divides us on this issue. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, who in due course will propose an amendment, our view is that the clause already addresses his concerns. What we want to achieve is essentially the same as he intends, and I hope that that offers some comfort. We have some concern that his amendments, which are obviously well intended, will have some unfortunate side effects that he would not wish to see.
	The government amendment was drafted by parliamentary counsel to provide that the chief inspector "may" inspect a restorative justice scheme, to confer on him the power to do so. The Government intend that the chief inspector will inspect schemes as regularly as he thinks appropriate. The noble Lord's amendment creates instead a statutory duty on the chief inspector regularly to inspect all schemes. Under such an arrangement, the chief inspector could be in breach of that statutory duty if he did not inspect all schemes with the same regularity, whether or not he believed it appropriate to do so. This could leave the chief inspector vulnerable to legal challenge when he is merely carrying out the task conferred on him by the Government with the diligence that he has shown in his work so far. For example, there might be occasions when the chief inspector will wish to inspect some schemes more frequently than others, either in response to complaints or simply to satisfy himself that proper standards are being met. The noble Lord's amendment would constrain him in his ability to do this.
	I regret to say, too, that the amendment appears to suggest that regular inspection is required of schemes that are the subject of an application to register. Schemes in that transitional position are subject to a preregistration inspection and are inspected again by consent only if they have initially failed to meet the required standards for registration. The application process should take about two to three months, so we do not see the need for more than one inspection during the application process unless the chief inspector wishes to check that conditional recommendations have been implemented.
	As for handling inspection reports, the government amendment provides that each inspection will be reported by the chief inspector but affords the flexibility for several inspections to be addressed in one report when the chief inspector thinks it appropriate to do so. Each of those reports representing all the inspections undertaken would then be published and laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State. Amendments Nos. 3C and 3D remove from the chief inspector the flexibility to report collectively on a number of schemes operating under the same organisational banner. We have seen that operating already very effectively in his collective pre-accreditation inspection report on four community-based restorative justice schemes, affiliated to the Northern Ireland alternatives. That was laid before your Lordships' House on 2 May. But that is a minor point.
	The chief inspector will still report on all inspections, but the amendment would limit the exercise of his discretion to inspect and report in the manner that he thinks most appropriate. It is as simple as that. We believe that it is important that the chief inspector retains the flexibility to target those schemes that he assesses might require more frequent announced or unannounced inspections than others. I am certain that is what noble Lords want to happen. Taken collectively, the amendments to the Motion could expose the chief inspector to the risk of unnecessary and potentially mischievous challenge where he might seek to use his own judgment in setting inspection schedules.
	On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments. We are at one on this. The policy remains the same as it did before we even started down the route of agreeing to this amendment, which we did at Third Reading. We have simply tried to put the policy as operated into legislative form, meeting the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, which had the agreement of the House. Parliamentary counsel has chosen this way of doing it. It meets all our policy objectives and gives discretion to the chief inspector, who performs the professional function. I repeat the following for the avoidance of any doubt: a power is provided that the chief inspector may inspect a scheme. That has been done in order to confer on him the very power to inspect a scheme. That is the term which parliamentary counsel thought most appropriate in order to give the chief inspector that power.
	Moved, Motion A, That the House do not insiston its Amendment No. 3 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3A in lieu.—(Lord Rooker.)
	MOTION A1
	line 18, leave out "may" and insert "shall regularly"
	line 20, leave out "from time to time make a"
	line 21, leave out "inspections" and insert "each inspection"

Lord Trimble: My Lords, I beg to move, as an amendment to Motion A, Motion A1, at end to insert, "but do propose Amendments Nos. 3B to 3D to Commons Amendment No. 3A".
	I was very pleased when the Minister in this House accepted the new clause that I tabled a few weeks ago. I particularly appreciated the comments that he made in doing so when he referred to the new clause having four main elements, two of which comprised "shalls" and two of which comprised "mays". He noted that there was a balance between what the inspector would be required to do and those matters on which he would have discretion. He said that parliamentary draftsmen would look at these matters and, if they felt that the drafting could be improved, would do so. I had, and have, no difficulty with parliamentary draftsmen looking at these matters and tidying them up. I shall not fuss about the form of matters; it is the substance which is important to me. However, I regret to say that I believe there has been a change of substance here.
	I noted that when Motion A was being considered in another place, the Minister, Mr Goggins, said:
	"The Government amendment is therefore consistent with the approach taken in existing legislation relating to the chief inspector's other inspection functions".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/5/07; col. 330.]
	Would that it were. The amendment has changed one of the "shalls" that I had in the original new clause to a "may". I refer to the "shall" that imposed upon the inspector of criminal justice a duty to inspect schemes. Under this amendment that has now become a discretion, which I do not believe is a step in the right direction.
	It is instructive to look at the powers and functions of the chief inspector under the existing legislation. This is referred to in the Government's amendment. Section 46 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, headed, "Functions of Chief Inspector", begins:
	"(1) The Chief Inspector must carry out inspections of the following organisations".
	It does not say "may" or "shall", but "must". The organisations listed include the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Forensic Science Northern Ireland, the State Pathologist's Department, the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the Justice Board. All these things must be inspected, but when we come to community restorative justice schemes, the Government prefer "may".
	I refer to the publication of reports. Subsection (5)(b) in the Government's Amendment No. 3A refers toSection 49 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. The amendment states that,
	"section 49(2) to (4) of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 ... shall apply in relation to the report".
	It leaves out Section 49(1), which states:
	"The Chief Inspector must report to the Secretary of State on each inspection and review carried out by him".
	Against the background of those mandatory requirements in the 2002 Act, I found great difficulty in sympathising with the argument put by the Minister. If it is a matter of form, I am not concerned with it; it is a question of the substance. The substance with regard to the other functions of the criminal justice legislation under the 2002 Act is to put a duty on the inspector to inspect, and to put a duty on him to report with regard to each inspection. If that is the function and the duty of the inspector with regard to all those other matters that he has to look at, why should those responsibilities be less with regard to community restorative justice schemes?The other functions that the inspector is inspecting—the police, the prosecution service, the juvenileboard, the probation board and all the rest of it—are carried out by professional persons whose knowledge and skill is known from their strong record. A duty is put on the inspector with regard to the inspection of those professional persons carrying out duties that they have carried out before in a responsible way.
	Here, we have community restorative justice schemes which, by and large, are going to be run by former paramilitaries—the guidelines adopted by the Northern Ireland Office are designed to enable former paramilitaries to run them—yet with regard to them there will be a lesser requirement in terms of inspection and publication. That naturally gives me concern. I want to see community restorative justice schemes operating properly, and the only measure that we have to ensure that is the inspectorate. The inspectorate therefore should be operating with regard to community restorative justice schemes to the same standard and under the same duties as apply to the functions of the inspectorate generally.
	Moved, as an amendment to Motion A, Motion A1, at end to insert, "but do propose Amendments Nos. 3B to 3D to Commons Amendment No. 3A".—(Lord Trimble.)

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sorry; I misunderstood the noble and learned Lord. In this respect, the noble Lord's amendment to the government amendment would create a statutory duty on the inspector to regularly inspect all schemes. My interpretation of that is that all schemes would have to be inspected at the same interval; otherwise, the inspector would be vulnerable to legal challenge. If, while diligently carrying out his work, he decided, as a risk base, that some schemes needed to be inspected more frequently than others—that is the important point—then, under the amendment, he would be constrained to report on all schemes with the same regularity. We think that, frankly, that is a step too far.
	There is no question but that all the schemeswill be inspected. They will be pre-inspected for accreditation and thereafter they will be regularly inspected at the chief inspector's discretion and each inspection will be reported on. We are simply saying that the inspector should have the discretion to inspect some organisations more frequently than others, based on whether there is a complaint, whether risks are found or whether the people running them change. The inspector has the power to carry out those inspections unannounced. We are saying that the inspector should not be required, as implied in the amendment, to inspect all the schemes that have been accredited with the same regularity. The lawyers are having a field day today and I am just piggy in the middle but my advice is that, if the inspector does not do that, he will be vulnerable to legal challenge because he will not be carrying out inspections with the same regularity, and we think that that would be unreasonable.

Lord Trimble: My Lords, following on from the debate about the word "regularly", I think that the Minister has given a very inflexible and rather unusual interpretation of it. Going by normal usage of the word, I do not think that there would in any way be the degree of inflexibility that he complains about. Even if he is still worried about that, he might like to turn his attention to Section 47 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, which is the legal framework that the Minister in another place, Mr Goggins, said would be assimilated under his amendment for the inspection of community restorative justice schemes. Section 47 says:
	"The Chief Inspector must"—
	there is that word "must" again—
	"from time to time, after consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, prepare a programme specifying the inspections which he proposes to carry out".
	The phrase "prepare a programme" clearly indicates not the inflexible regularity that the Minister thinks of, but a regularity that can be tempered with regard to what is being inspected and the appropriate circumstances for it. I do not think that the word "regularly" carries the weight that the Minister attaches to it.
	Furthermore, the 2002 Act makes it clear that the inspector can draw up a programme. If that section were to apply to the inspections under the criminal justice scheme, there would be no difficulty. I am not sure whether it does or does not at the moment, because it is not clear to what extent the general provisions of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, which regulate the actions of the Criminal Justice Inspectorate and other matters, will also apply to the actions of the Criminal Justice Inspectorate with regard to inspection of community restorative justice schemes. In any event, the Minister's point is not well taken.
	I have some sympathy with what the Minister says about the publication of reports. My concern when I saw the phrase "from time to time" was—and the Minister made the point precisely—that the Northern Ireland Office, which for various reasons is sometimes suspected of having too much tenderness towards the concerns and needs of paramilitaries and not enough concern for the safety and rights of citizens, mightbe tempted to let some embarrassing reports lie gathering dust for a long time. If that concern can be met in other ways, I shall not stand in the way.
	I want a clear duty to be placed on the Criminal Justice Inspectorate with regard to the carrying out of inspections of accredited schemes. That is important because, as I said when proposing the new clause, it will greatly strengthen the hands of the Criminal Justice Inspectorate. That is the only safeguard that we have with regard to these novel adventures, which we know carry risks. It is for that reason and because I am not satisfied with the—

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement made in the place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on the planning system. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the planning system."This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, one of the great civilising reforms of Attlee's Government. That Act laid the framework for a planning system that has helped to create thriving towns, protect our most beautiful countryside, and ensure green spaces around our cities. Its adaptability has been key to years of success: further reform will help ensure its success for the future."Today, we face significant and growing challenges that could not have been imagined60 years ago: from climate change and globalisation to energy security in an uncertain world. If we are to meet these challenges successfully, planning must be part of the solution. In its current form, it is simply not up to the task. "Both Kate Barker, in her review of land use planning, and Sir Rod Eddington, in his review of transport infrastructure, have highlighted the shortcomings of the planning system. First, an inaccessible and sometimes baffling system makes it hard for people to have their say on issues which can have a big impact on their quality of life. Too often it favours the well resourced over the less well-off. "Secondly, decision-making can be painfully slow, causing costs and prolonged uncertainty that are in no one's interests—not those of individuals, communities or developers. Thirdly, where good and necessary development is held up, it can mean society missing out on the reliable transport, secure energy, clean water or public amenities that we all need."The costs of not acting are clear, and will only grow more acute in future: energy shortages, mounting congestion, loss of jobs and a worse quality of life. Indeed, an effective planning system is vital for delivering government policy across a wide range of areas. "The White Paper that I am publishing today sets out a series of proposals to meet the challenges of the future and continue to reform the town and country planning system. The White Paper represents the result of close working across Government. I am presenting it to Parliament today together with my right honourable friends the Trade and Industry Secretary, the Transport Secretary and the Environment Secretary."Let me first address the proposals on how we take decisions about major infrastructure, suchas transport, environmental, waste or energy projects—everything from roads to reservoirs, to power plants and wind farms. The system for taking these decisions has grown up piecemeal over decades, with complex, unwieldy and overlapping rules. Some developments have to get approval under a number of different piecesof legislation, and make numerous separate applications. We need a simpler system to respond to the challenges that we face. The White Paper will ensure that decisions are taken in a way that is transparent and timely, and that achieves the right balance of interests. "There are three key elements to our proposed new procedures for national infrastructure projects. First, Ministers will issue national policy statements about the infrastructure that the country needs for the next 10 to 25 years. Those statements will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and intense public debate, making sure that people have early input into the formulation of the policy, rather than rehearsing the same arguments over and over again in different local inquiries."Secondly, we are replacing the numerous and sometimes overlapping 'consent regimes' for major infrastructure projects with a single system. This will provide a far clearer and more accessible application process than at present."Thirdly, we propose to create a new, independent infrastructure planning commission. This will bring together experts from key sectors, including planners, lawyers, environmentalists and communities. Guided by the national policy statements, the commission will oversee the planning inquiry process on specific major developments and take the final decisions on whether they should go ahead. It will listen closely to local concerns, and where it approves an application, it will be able to specify measures to mitigate the impact on a local area. It will be accountable to Ministers and to Parliament for its performance. We believe it will bring greater objectivity, transparency and accountability to the decision-making process."Some interest groups promote a false choice between speed and public engagement. Our reforms will achieve both, providing opportunities for better public engagement at every step in the process. There will be public engagement in the formulation of the national policy statements, at the scheme development stage, and during the inquiry process. We are backing this up with a new legal duty for developers to consult the public. Consultation must not be a box-ticking process, but a genuine opportunity for local people to have their say in shaping the places where they live. In addition to this, we are increasing resources for bodies such as Planning Aid, helping more communities and individuals to get access to free professional planning advice. "As well as new procedures for major infrastructure projects, the White Paper outlines measures to improve the town and country planning system. Kate Barker's report recognised the progress that had been made in recent years to speed up the system and make it more effective. But it also stressed the need to reform further for greater flexibility, responsiveness and efficiency. Our White Paper responds to these recommendations. "Our aim is to create a level playing fieldthat better integrates economic, social and environmental objectives. We will do this by building on the success of the plan-led system, with sustainability at its heart. New planning policy statements on economic development and climate change will clarify the national policy on these vital issues. We will also streamline our planning policy documents to devolve where appropriate to local decision-makers. "We will continue to promote prosperous and thriving town centres. Our 'town centre first' policy has been a real success, with over two-fifths of retail development now in town centres, compared with just a quarter in 1994. It will remain in place, but there is scope for it to be more effective still. The current 'needs test' can sometimes be a blunt instrument. In future, we will require a better assessment of how new developments will affect town centres, including the impact on high streets and local shops. Development outside the town centre should not go ahead where it will have a detrimental impact on the town centre. We are also reaffirming our commitment to the fundamentals of green belt policy. It has served us well for60 years, and will continue to do so in the future. "It is vital that planning plays its part in tackling climate change. We will make it easier for householders to reduce their fuel bills and carbon footprint by installing small-scale renewable technologies such as solar panels. In addition, building on the progress made on new homes, my honourable friend the Minister for Housing will work with industry to deliver a significant reduction in carbon emissions from new offices and shops."We are strengthening the role of local government in planning. We want to enable local authorities to use planning increasingly effectively as a tool to achieve their vision for their area. We will continue to work with partners, including the Local Government Association and the planning profession, to improve performance. With this growing local expertise we aim to devolve further decision-making to local communities and to reduce the number of town and country planning cases called in by the Secretary of State. "Our reforms will make town and country planning applications more efficient. We will make it easier for people to make minor improvements to their homes, such as building conservatories or small extensions, while continuing to protect the interests of neighbours and local communities. This will enable councils to focus resources on the genuinely difficult cases. We will both simplify planning applications and speed up the appeals system. "Our reforms will be good for citizens, who will have greater opportunities to have their say at every stage in the process, and the chance to make minor improvements to their homes more easily. Our reforms will be good for communities—supporting sustainable and vibrant town centres, and helping to create safe and healthy places to live. "Our reforms will be good for business, with greater certainty about the national policy framework to encourage investment and faster decisions on developments. Our reforms will be good for the country, with better access to reliable transport, secure energy, clean water supplies and better local amenities. Finally, our reforms will put climate change and sustainable development where they belong—right at the heart of the planning system. "Our proposals build on Attlee's legacy and give us a planning system fit for the 21st century. I commend this White Paper to the House".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and reiterate my concern that these Benches received a copy of it only at a very late stage, which makes it difficult to respond in a meaningful way. However, very helpfully the Secretary of State in another place has spent the whole weekend briefing the media, so we had a fairly good idea of what was to come. Before we start, it is worth reflecting that, although it is 60 years old, the existing planning regime has served us very well. Anyone who has seen development sprawl in countries where planning policies are not so rigorous would attest to the fact that our planning regime has done well. So I begin by cautioning the Minister on moving towards something that looks like a general presumption in favour of development. That would have very serious effects on how our neighbourhoods look. Indeed, sometimes the cumulative effect of lots of small changes can be to fundamentally alter the character of a neighbourhood, especially in historic towns and villages. So I would caution care in this area.
	Any planning system has to mediate between competing and often contradictory influences. There will always be a number of people who are unhappy with the outcome, and the tendency will be for them to say, "The system is at fault". The job of government and of Parliament is to rise above that and to look more strategically, not at the competing interest groups but at the balance between economic, social and environmental regeneration, a process in which the trade-offs are understood, debated and taken into account. That is how we on these Benches will judge the Government's moves in planning.
	There are two aspects to our planning system, the strategic and the site specific—development control, in other words. The majority of site-specific planning applications are fairly small and dealt with expeditiously. Some planning departments are better than others but the answer is to raise the standards of the poorly performing ones. Progress has been made since 2004, and I urge the Government to continue supporting, in particular, the small district councils where capacity clearly is an issue.
	We remain concerned, as do many local authorities, about retaining the needs test when taking into account edge-of-town and out-of-town developments. In his report, Michael Lyons referred to his vision of councils as place shapers. If local shops become boarded up as a result of an out-of-town development, it may be a victory for market forces but it would be difficult for a council to then go to a community and say, "We had no choice". If place shaping is to mean anything, that kind of choice must be retained.
	I think it is agreed that the strategic side of our planning system performs less well. I have said several times in your Lordships' House that the most significant problem has been the lack of a meaningful national framework, whether for housing, energy or transport. Therefore, in principle at least, a new decision-making process which clarifies and separates out policy and decision making is to be welcomed. Up until now, individual applications tend to be considered in isolation from each other and planning inquiries get bogged down for years because they are often the only forum for debating the overall context. Terminal 5 andSizewell C, for example, are classic examples of where the inquiries ground on for years because they werenot only discussing national aviation and national energy policy but also considering proposals forbus stops and junction layouts. We would welcome national policy frameworks for different kinds of infrastructure.
	I am most concerned about the independent planning commission, on which I have questions. I hope that the Minister will respond to at least some of them today. Because of the short time that has been available to me, I am still not clear whether the decisions of the planning commission will be executive: whether it will make the final decision or whether it will simply advise the Minister. If it is to make the final decision, it is important to know whether it can be challenged, whether its meetings will be held in public and whether its documentation will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act—in other words, whether its decisions can be scrutinised by the public.
	The document contains a list of thresholds of the size of project that will fall under the scope of the planning commission. To my eyes, there is an unusually large number. Can the Minister tell the House approximately how many of these projects it is envisaged the planning commission will look at each year? The proposal is for a body made up of three to five members. Clearly its capacity for dealing with these complex issues is important. I was slightly shocked and alarmed to see a proposal, at least for consultation, that some decisions could be taken by one member. We might agree that the current public inquiry system is cumbersome and lengthy, but to move from that to a system where one person makes a decision requires a leap of faith that I am not sure we on these Benches are ready to make. Can the Minister say what changes are being made for schemes which may be large enough to be of regional significance but fall outside the framework of the new planning commission?
	We can read the document, study it with great interest and look forward to further debate when we have had an opportunity to hear what the stakeholders think, but on these Benches the test will be whether any new system achieves a balance between economic development and environmental and social considerations, and still retains a feeling of genuine community engagement in the decisions which affect it. We welcome, at least, the start of the debate and what appears to be a genuinely consultative approach.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that the noble Baronesses have given to the White Paper. I apologise that your Lordships have had such short notice for the Statement on the planning White Paper, and I shall explore why that was the case. I appreciate that the document is long and complicated, and I look forward to debating it in this House at greater length.
	I shall start with some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. She is quite right that there have been many changes to the planning system in recent years; she knows that all too well.We have kept a watching brief on what has been happening with the local government frameworks and we will learn from experience. That is why we make it clear in this White Paper, just as we did in the local government White Paper, that we are looking to simplify some of the processes—for example, in the options and appraisals stage, so that it becomes proportionate and optimal when it is needed.
	I and other Members of the Government have been pleased about the warm welcome that has been given to the White Paper by the Local Government Association today. In fact, it has been well received in general. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Lockhart, who sadly is not in his place, said:
	"The White Paper offers a real opportunity to bring in a planning system which promotes economic growth and attractive environments, rewards innovation and vision and gives democratically elected local councillors the ability to create places where people can thrive".
	I think that that is an important step forward.
	On the questions asked by both noble Baronesses about the structural changes involving the new commission, the point is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said, that we need national frameworks for policy-making under which decisions are made about where things are locationally proper. With the White Paper, we have for the first time an opportunity to construct a framework where the broad policies, whether on waste, water, energy or transport, can be made in full public view and challenged in the same way by public consultation. We will then go on to determine the reasons why we need the sort of infrastructure that we do.
	The role of the independent planning commission will be to apply those principles of sustainability and economic viability to the specific applications that come to it. It will take these decisions itself, independently. Its task will be to ensure that the national criteria are met, particularly where they impact locally. Some aspects of planning will be locationally more specific than others and there will be an opportunity for local consultees to be involved at a very early stage with the national policy framework decision. When the application is reviewed, the process will not be as it is at present, when the policy itself is often under scrutiny and there is endless debate about why this is happening. That will have been cleared out of the way and agreed, not least because these policy statements will have to go through Parliament, so there will be a mechanism for dealing with that.
	I shall speed on and discuss the consultation process. Running through the whole White Paper is a strong commitment to getting consultation right. It is essentially a three-stage process. There will be thorough consultation on the national policy statements and the sector-specific policy statements, but for the first time, when it gets to the point where the developers are being scrutinised, there will be a legal requirement on them to demonstrate that they have been consulted adequately, and there will be a list of statutory consultees who will advise. Finally, the independent commission will run the inquiry as part of its process; again, there will be a rigorous opportunity for people to be involved, including an open-stage process, which we do not have at the moment. The commission will take its decisions but it will of course be subject to legal challenge in court. The Secretary of State will not have the current ministerial role—the accountable role—in making the decisions.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked me whether the commission will be able to grant powers and change legislation. We want any applications for major infrastructure as far as possible to have been made under a single consent. That is one of the ways of speeding things up, instead of these multiple regimes that people have to consult at the moment. The present mix of eight regimes includes, for example, compulsory purchase and changing private legislation. We will have to look at how we deal with that multiplicity of issues.
	We think that there will be roughly 10 to 25 projects a year, but if only one member were to take the inquiry, the decision would be made by the board of the commission and not by a single person.
	As I said in the Statement, town-centre policy has been very successful and has certainly led to a revival of our town centres. Town-centre development has increased from 25 per cent in 1994 to 41 per cent in 2004. Sometimes, the needs test has had a perverse effect and deterred competition. We therefore want a better test, building on what works. I confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that we are not changing green-belt policies, but local authorities are not ruled out from reviewing them.
	Important questions about protection were raised, but the present system is perverse. It allows unattractive developments because they simply fulfil the volume requirements. It is spelt out in the consultation paper that we want to move to a system based on height, size and distance from boundary. It sets down clear rules, but in a way that makes it clear to people whether they have to apply for planning permission. We hope to take about 85,000 schemes from an annual number of 325,000 out of the system. That will certainly help to simplify matters.
	I am conscious that I have been unable to answer all the questions that were asked. I shall make sure that I do so in writing. I look forward to a continuing debate on this topic.

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, if there is to be a free-for-all, or something like it, in home extensions and alterations, does the Minister accept that the cumulative damage to the quality of the built environment will be significant? Will the Government at the very least make sure that advice on good design in such developments and models of good practice from the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and English Heritage are made extensively available? Where conservation areas and listed buildings are in question, will the Government ensure that conservation and planning officers in local authorities are trained, advised, empowered and under a duty to ensure the appropriateness of physical change in these sensitive cases and to sustain the quality of our historic environment?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the foundation of our current planning system is governed by Planning Policy Statement 1, at the heart of which is sustainable development. That remains the most important statement we have of the need to make that a paramount consideration. For the first time, the national policy statement will integrate the rangeof issues that we need to address. Certainly, sustainability is primary to that. For the first time, we will have a mechanism for weighing up the benefits across the range of considerations, including economic sustainability in terms of the environment. As I say, we shall have, for the first time, a mechanism for doing that. However, sustainability remains at the heart of everything that we plan to do.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am still not clear about what will happen if the Government come forward with a new nuclear power programme and how that will fit in with the new national planning permission. Nuclear power stations are completely different; they have more implications for areas than normal power stations that are powered by gas or even coal. Bearing in mind that Sizewell B had a planning inquiry of about 10 years before it was agreed, I would be interested to know exactly who would be making the decisions. How long wouldthey be likely to take? In particular, would all representations be properly heard by the commission?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am always hesitant to disappoint the noble Baroness, but I hope that I will not disappoint her on this occasion, because she quite right—I am unable to accede to her amendments. She will know, as I do, the distinction between this Bill and the Legal Services Bill, which looked directly at the role to be played by the Lord Chancellor, as Lord Chancellor, as opposed to as a Secretary of State discharging other duties. It is important that we concentrate on what this Bill is about, although it is fascinating to examine the changes in the machinery of government that occur from time to time.
	This start to our discussions may be a helpful opportunity to consider the creation of the Ministry of Justice, which has generated much interest and debate. I remind the House that this debate is about not the Ministry of Justice but the Bill. Perhaps we should not allow ourselves to be distracted from the real issues that we are here to debate concerning the future of the Probation Service.
	The Ministry of Justice came into existence on the 9 May with one purpose only—to improve the justice system for the public. We will achieve that by bringing together many of the organisations, agencies and stakeholders who have to work together to deliver a successful justice system under the responsibility of one ministry. The Ministry of Justice provides an opportunity for the whole justice system to work together better than ever before. At a national policy level and at a local delivery level the Ministry of Justice will build on the significant improvements that we have seen since 1997 in how agencies work together and will provide clear leadership within government for the justice outcomes that best serve the public.
	I turn now to the implications of this change to the Bill. Responsibility for this Bill has now transferred from the Home Office to the Ministry of Justice, as I said it would at Second Reading. I also made it clear that the Government remain fully committed to the policy provisions in the Bill and I am delighted to have the opportunity to continue to oversee the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House.
	A number of amendments have been tabled in the light of that change. The noble Baroness has rightly raised this issue at this stage, but my noble friend Lord Judd has also referred to this by proposing a change to the commencement clause at Clause 38 which would substitute,
	"Secretary of State of the Ministry of Justice",
	for the current term, "Secretary of State". I am happy to say that none of these amendments is necessary. There is no legal distinction between the different Secretaries of State and it is a matter of mere administrative convenience that responsibilities are divided as they are, and it is not normal practice to make reference to any particular Secretary of State. So the existing references, though originally drafted with the Secretary of State for the Home Department in mind, can be applied in the same way to the Secretary of State for Justice. The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Judd is, therefore, unnecessary.
	The other amendments in the name of the noble Baroness seek to merge the posts of Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State. Those posts are quite separate and distinct, although they are, at present, both held by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. There are numerous references to the Lord Chancellor—

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: With this amendment, we challenge the Government's intentions regarding the future use of conditional cautions. The expansion of their use as a punishment could have significant impact on the work of the probation services, which are core to the Bill. The last paragraph of Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that can extend the purposes listed in subsection (1), which we debated last week. He may extend those purposes to include other purposes relating to persons charged with, or convicted of, offences or persons to whom conditional cautions are given.
	My amendment would prevent the Secretary of State adding extra purposes relating to those who are given conditional cautions. What extra purposes can the Government have in mind? The Minister will recall that, during the passage of the Police and Justice Bill, we expressed our concerns about the Government's plans to extend widely the use of conditional cautions and in particular to change the purposes for which they can be imposed. I made it clear that we continued to support the provisions launched by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which introduced conditional cautions intended to facilitate the rehabilitation of the offender or to ensure that the offender makes reparation—note that it provides for rehabilitation and reparation. But in the Police and Justice Act the Government took the power for conditional cautions to be imposed as a punishment. My colleague Nick Herbert expressed our concerns in another place about the extension of the purpose of cautions to include punishment, but at that time, after much consideration, we agreed that the clause should remain in the Bill while we assessed the impact of the new proposals, when implemented, on cautioning.
	I also put on the record our concern about the developments in government policy since the clause was debated in another place. Mr Blair had announced the intention dramatically to increase the use of administrative punishment and to avoid the use of the courts. There was no proper public debate on that matter. In March this year the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General sent me a copy of the consultation on the revised code of practice for conditional cautioning, and I am grateful to him for doing so. When are we likely to see the results of that consultation?
	Page four of the consultation paper refers to the rolling out of the pre Police and Justice Act cautioning—conditions for rehabilitation or reparation. The Attorney-General's letter stated that a national roll-out was under way and that the Government were on target to have a conditional cautioning scheme operating in one basic command unit in every force area in England and Wales by summer 2007 and that full implementation of the scheme was planned for March 2008. He added that the Government hoped to introduce the new punitive measures on a phased basis from autumn 2007, so all those changes will take place when the Bill comes into effect and they will have an impact on how contestability in the Bill may operate.
	What assessment has been made of the impact of the roll-out on probation services' resources and their dispersal between the different tasks that the services need to fulfil? What extra funds have been needed so far to cover the supervision of those on conditional cautions? What new funds have the Government set aside to cover all the extra work that will follow for probation services when the conditional caution is used widely as a punishment? One assumes that the costs are likely to be heavier since there will be more resistance to fulfilling any directions that are overtly a punishment as opposed to those intended as part of a system of rehabilitation.
	How do the Government intend to use the powers in subsection (5) to extend the purposes relating to conditional cautions? What impact will that have on the probation services and the cost of running the associated services? I beg to move.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: There is a larger underlying point that we should mark as we go past. If we are introducing contestability, the question of how far private providers of services should provide punishment will come up more and more. If a conditional caution is to be defined as a punishment, it raises some awkward questions about the contestability of services. I firmly hold the view that punishment should be provided by the state andits officers not private service providers. That is something we must debate each time this arises inthe Bill.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I support the amendment. As we all know, and as has been mentioned, conditional cautions were introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and are a form of administrative justice. They offer an alternative to entering the criminal justice system for low-level offending and are greatly to be welcomed as a break on what can be seen as a recent creeping tendency for sentencing to widen the net and for offenders to become criminalised at an earlier stage.
	As we have also heard, when conditional cautions were introduced, their objective was absolutely clear. They were an essentially non-punitive response to low-level offending which gave police the opportunity to press home the unacceptability of the behaviour and to attach conditions which were exclusively focused on reparation and rehabilitation. This approach is greatly to be encouraged as widely as possible, not least because those two objectives also have the best chances of giving satisfaction to the victim and reducing reoffending. We strongly support them.
	We had some lengthy arguments during the passage of the Police and Justice Bill when the Government wanted to extend the conditions to include other sanctions, such as fines, which went beyond the original intentions and were essentially punitive. As I understood it, it was then agreed that there would be trials in a few areas to test out the wider approach. On the basis that this would be revisited before being more widely applied, we accepted that situation at the time.
	The Bill already allows for probation services to be involved in determining whether conditional cautions should be given—and, if so, which cautions should be attached—and for the supervision of anybody to whom such a caution is given. In that sense, it seems entirely superfluous to include this sentence in the Bill, and raises the worry that it is another way of paving the way to the further extensions that we resisted during the passage of the Police andJustice Bill.
	The extension of administrative justice, even to speed up the process of justice—which I know was an issue for the Government at the time—or in a limited form, is absolutely undesirable. It would be welcome if the Minister could categorically reassure the Committee that no such measures will be taken, or included in the Bill, until all the issues have been revisited, as we were last year assured they would be.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The provision is very much seen as a tidying-up amendment. I remind the Committee that it will always be open to the individual to decline to accept a caution. If they do not wish to accept a conditional caution, it is therefore absolutely open to them to go to court and have it dealt with. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, is absolutely right when she says that conditional cautions are a useful way of narrowing, as opposed to widening, the number drawn into the criminal justice system. It is sometimes enough to arrest the behaviour by bringing it to the attention of the individual, considering how best to make reparation—which conditional cautions can enable us to do—and then, one hopes, stopping them from continuing to reoffend. The beauty of it is that a conditional caution is significantly different from a full-blown conviction. It can assist greatly in the long-term.
	We therefore the financial element when we last debated this matter. I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, says about the caution with which she approached those issues. However, I remind the Committee that Clause 1 is based on Section 1 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, as amended by Section 26 of the Criminal JusticeAct 2003. The 2003 Act added the probation purposes. Clause 1(1)(b) of the Bill provides for,
	"authorised persons to be given assistance in determining whether conditional cautions should be given and which conditions to attach to conditional cautions".
	We will discuss shortly the regulation-making power in Clause 1(5). However, Amendment No. 13 would remove the power to extend the purposes relating to persons to whom conditional cautions are given. I understand the spirit in which it has been tabled because it enables us to clarify the purpose.
	I commend what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said about the importance and utility of conditional cautions, which was echoed by all noble Lords who spoke. A conditional caution enables the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to offer a caution with conditions attached. It may be given to an adult when there is sufficient evidence to charge him with an offence that he has admitted. The offender must agree to that caution. If the conditions are not complied with, the offender can be prosecuted for the original offence. It is important to remember that if the offender breaches the conditions, he returns to square one and is then prosecuted. It is for the CPS to decide whether a conditional caution is suitable and to identify appropriate conditions.
	Those conditions can include reparative work conditions. The National Offender Management Service is currently working with the respect task force, which is funding the project, and the Probation Service to increase the opportunities for unpaid reparative work conditions in a number of pilot sites. The role of the Probation Service in this project is to identify suitable schemes that can be used, drawing on its expertise from involvement in similar schemes. The pilots are expected to last a year, from January 2007 to December 2007, and will be evaluated to provide information regarding the costs and benefits involved in the use of such conditions. That will help us to make a proper judgment about how best to use them.
	When the 2000 Act was amended by the 2003 Act, the amendments did not include conditional cautions in the power to extend probation purposes by means of regulation. However, there are certainly no plansto extend the probation purposes in relation to conditional cautions; nor is there any reason of principle to treat this aspect of provision differently from the others. This is simply a tidying-up provision, which I hope noble Lords will agree is sensible.
	The respect agenda is an opportunity to look at how others may be able to assist us in this regard. A number of voluntary sector agencies are keen to assist in some of this lighter intervention to help people to get over some of their difficulties. We see this as a helpful opportunity to move forward. With that, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, was right to pick up the issue of cost. It is an issue that concerns me. I still do not have a feel for how the budgets are working, and how they are being transferred from the Home Office to what was the DCA. As a lot of what the Government are trying to do in the Bill is predicated on trying to use more effectively the money that is available, that worries me.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, picked up another issue that worries me as it runs through the Bill. It is why I tabled my amendment that kicked off our first day in Committee last week. That is the future role of probation services with regard to punishment and what we consider punishment to be. Conditional cautions which require punishment will obviously involve probation services, by whomsoever they are provided, in punishing the offender.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she tried to give better clarification. She took us further forward. I am grateful for her saying that there are no plans at present to extend the purposes of conditional cautions. She will not be surprised if I watch as carefully as I can, given that it is just me, to see that there are no changes. I appreciate what she says about the tidying-up nature in the reference to the 2000 Act. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, which I will not bring back on Report.

Lord Ramsbotham: The amendment stands in my name, as well as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I shall speak in particular to the regulatory powers sought for the Secretary of State in relation to the provision of probation services.
	Before speaking to the amendment, I thank the Minister for the large package of information which was transmitted to us at 5.42 pm on Friday. I was grateful for it, although I must admit to her that I was enormously disappointed when I saw what the corporate allowance was all about—of the 26 organisations, several were charities, two were hotels and one a garden centre. I had rather hoped for more than that.
	I freely admit that the basis for the amendment is the concern that a number of us have about an action taken last September, when a statutory instrument was introduced that changed the composition of probation boards and removed magistrates and members of local government from them by stealth, to be honest, because we were given no warning. We did not have time to go through it before it was introduced. Therefore, we are seriously concerned that that might happen again in relation to probation services. I am particularly concerned at the moment about the introduction of probation trusts, about which I wish to conclude.
	I spent a considerable amount of time over the weekend going through in great detail what was said last Wednesday, particularly by the Minister. I shall, if I may, replay some of her words to her. I think that we are absolutely at one on the intention behind so much of the Bill; it is the method and the detail that cause concern. First, she said that,
	"we could do better on reducing reoffending".
	I think we all agree that we would like the figures to be better, but we will talk about what reoffending means later in our consideration of the Bill, so I do not propose to do so here.
	Secondly, the Minister said that,
	"we are talking about two different systems: the system of commissioning services and that of the provision of services".
	However, commissioning enables provision, so we are talking not so much about two different systems but about two complementary systems. The Minister went on to say that,
	"we are introducing a process of commissioning".—[Official Report, 16/5/07; cols. 225-26.]
	Anyone reading that could be forgiven for thinking that commissioning was brand new, but of course commissioning has been in place ever since 1907. The commissioning of services, whether by a probation service or the voluntary sector, has actually happened. The Minister says that the Government are introducing a "process of commissioning", which is not the same thing at all: we are talking about a different process, not about commissioning itself. It is the process of commissioning being introduced that is causing concern. There is more stealth in this, as I shall outline. That is what causes us concern, because it is what the Government say they want to do rather than what may be necessary.
	Here I come to the necessary bits. I was very interested in what the Minister said about what the Probation Service was already doing. She said:
	"All the things alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham,"—
	in my amendment about the principles—
	"are already part of the framework of what the Probation Service does".
	Noble Lords will remember that that included the partnership between the private, the voluntary and the public sectors in the provision of probation, working in conjunction with local organisations. The Minister went on to say that the Probation Service,
	"has gone right to the centre of the criminal justice system".
	If the Probation Service is already at the heart of the criminal justice system, what else do we need from it? The Minister continued:
	"Now the Probation Service sometimes drives change and welds the criminal justice system together, an important cultural shift".—[Official Report, 16/5/07; col. 269.]
	If the Probation Service is already at the heart of the system and is welding it together, what change are we talking about that justifies such an upheaval in the method of commissioning?
	The Minister then said that,
	"compliance with court orders ... is an area in which probation performance has improved beyond recognition in recent years. For example, enforcement action is now taken swiftly in over90 per cent of cases".—[Official Report, 16/5/07; col. 273.]
	If I had a 90 per cent success rate in what I was doing, I would be extremely pleased. We talked so much about the need to improve enforcement and about compliance with court orders being at the heart of what the probation services are doing, but, according to the Minister, a great amount of it is already being done, so what are we actually talking about? Of course we must improve performance. It seems to me that the Bill is not so much about improving performance but about changing the method by which some of that performance is commissioned. That is not necessarily terribly wise, if everythingis currently working as well as the Minister tells usit is.
	Having said that, I have three questions for the Minister. The Minister has said:
	"We ... need to collocate relevant services on a regional basis to provide as efficaciously as possible easy access for those who need it. It makes sense to commission such services more regionally".—[Official Report, 16/5/07; col. 271.]
	How does the Minister propose to collate private and voluntary sector services on a regional basis when there is no way for the Government to direct the deployment of such services in that way. I think that the Minister means that you need to have local services working together on a regional basis, but that is not the same as collocating them.
	At col. 270 on 16 May, the Minister referred to the duty of the Probation Service to provide courts with details of the sentence plan to help them to come to the sentence. With respect, I do not think that that is correct. Until the sentence has been passed, the assessment on which the sentence plan is made cannot happen. The sentence plan cannot be provided before the sentence. Advice is needed by the courts, but a sentence plan cannot be provided as part of the pre-sentence report.
	My final concern is that the Minister mentioned that there would have to be personal officers in prisons who would be contacted by offender managers over the supervision of prisoners. I know that there are personal officers in prisons and that that system is under huge stress from overcrowding. Not many prisoners have personal officers, whose job is nothing to do with offender management or sentence planning. I merely question those matters.
	This Bill is about a very serious matter—the proper management of offenders and the protection of the public. I am deeply concerned that too much in this Bill is not sufficiently detailed and thought through in order to enable it to happen. You cannot just let it go. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, put it extremely well when he said:
	"I am disappointed, but I hope that she will go away and reflect on what we have been saying ... and see whether some adjustments can be made to the Bill to send a clearer signal about its strategic purpose".—[Official Report, 16/5/07; col. 249.]
	I entirely agree.
	We also need detail—by that, I mean not just this House but also probation boards and probation staffs. My concern is that those probation boards which wish to be considered trusts have to apply by4 June. We are told that they will be identified by the end of July and the first trusts will be formed on1 April 2008. But I have also consulted the probation boards to find out what they think about this, which I have done in the spirit of what I reported at Second Reading; namely, that 638 of the 648 dissenting—or at least critical—verdicts of the so-called consultation paper about probation were against or had some alternative view, and they have been airbrushed. In addition, a very disturbing comment was made by a senior official in the Home Office to the effect that it did not consult senior probation officers on this matter because they were too junior.
	The probation boards were asked about this consultation because they are the people who have to put themselves forward. They replied to the Home Office on 17 April 2007. They said:
	"We are pleased to provide a response but before addressing the question there are two overarching points we would wish to make. First, we believe that there is a fundamental lack of clarity as to the nature of a trust and how it will be different from a local probation board in real terms and, second, the proposal for trusts to be established in waves is potentially divisive, resulting in two concurrent probation governance regimes that would confuse stakeholders and be bureaucratic and extensive to resource".
	They went on to talk about integrated assessment, on which they were invited to comment.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I want to ask a brief question arising out of my understanding of this amendment, which I see as a probing amendment. As I understand it, the Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform gave a cautious report on the delegated powers in Clause 1(5). Under it, the Secretary of State will be enabled to extend probation purposes by order, subject to the negative procedure. Clause 2 requires him to make sufficient provision for probation purposes. The committee observed that the powerin Clause 1(5) was similar to that conferred inClause 1(3) of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. But—I emphasise this—without that precedent, the committee would have been inclined to consider that this power should be subject to the affirmative procedure. Can the Minister explain why the negative procedure should apply in this case?

Lord Northbourne: I support the amendment. It is extraordinarily strange that the Secretary of State should be given what is, as it were, an uncontrolled power to change the Bill. We spent the whole of the first day in Committee discussing the contents of the first clause, but apparently we were wasting our time because the Secretary of State can change it at any point he chooses.

The Earl of Listowel: When listening to my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham, I was reminded of the reforms undertaken by the Government in establishing the Child and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. They were very well intentioned and it is now going well. But, at the time, many guardians ad litem left the service because the transition was very poorly considered. I think that is accepted by all. The result was that children's cases were delayed—and delay is critical in the outcomes for children in these matters.
	I am also reminded of the recent proposed reforms to legal aid for family courts. I know the Government are thinking very carefully about this, but the current result is that businesses working in this area are closing down and lawyers are talking very seriously about leaving it because of the introduction of fixed fees.
	I am sure that the Minister is taking these concerns very seriously. She is trying very hard to explain what the intention is and I hope that she is successful. I would hate experienced probation officers to leave the service because their morale is reduced by the Bill. I hope she can reassure us.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is perhaps worth reminding the Committee that we are discussing the relative merits of having either an affirmative or negative resolution procedure. We are not—or should not be—focusing on a wider range of issues in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in his customary style, has broadened things out and away from the purpose of this sub-set debate, which, in essence, is what it is; it is a process issue.
	I understand that the noble Lord has major policy differences with the Government about the way in which commissioning should work. I understandthat he does not like the general thrust of this modernisation—although, of course, on some occasions he likes aspects of it—but that is not what we are discussing here. Many of the arguments he has raised today were discussed very fully at the outset of the Bill, not only at Second Reading but on the first day in Committee, so perhaps the House will allow me to run through very carefully the arguments surrounding this issue.
	There has been a great deal of discussion under Clause 1, which sets out the various purposes governing the probation services that are to be provided under the remainder of Part 1. The probation purposes describe the nature of the probation services to be provided under the new arrangements. Clause 1(5) enables the Secretary of State to extend, but not to narrow, the probation purposes by regulations which will be subject to negative resolution. I am sure all noble Lords understand that. The amendments would have the effect of making any extension to the probation purposes subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
	Perhaps it will assist the House if noble Lords understand that the same power already exists in the 2000 Act. Taking on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about providing an example of how that particular power has been of some value and virtue in the past, I should say that it was the means by which purposes were extended in 2001 to include the giving of information to victims. That extension was widely applauded, not just in your Lordships' House but more generally. It was a sensible, practical measure, and, I think most people would agree, highly desirable. It is possible that similar needs may arise in future that we cannot now predict, but which would be straightforward extensions of the existing power. It is not that—as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, suspects—we are forcing or foreshadowing some great extension of power other than things such as the provision of information to victims. It is not a stealthy move, as he has perhaps seen it. We might not be able to predict what those smaller steps might be, but it seems sensible to us to have a simple and effective way of making those sorts of changes without placing unnecessary burdens on the House and its time.
	The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee produced an extremely helpful report, which recognised the precedent that exists in the 2000 Act. The committee does not consider the negative procedure inappropriate at all. I have looked at what the committee had to say about the issue, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and it is worth reading it fully into the record. It says:
	"Clause 1 defines 'the probation purposes' and subsection (5) enables the Secretary of State to extend the purposes by order subject to negative procedure. Clause 2 requires the Secretary of State to make sufficient provision for the probation purposes. The power at Clause 1(5) is similar to that at Section 1(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 2000. Without this precedent, we would have been included to consider that this power should be subject to the affirmative procedure but we do not consider the negative procedure inappropriate".
	That is the committee's ultimate conclusion. It can see the virtue of the power and the way it has worked for small extensions of powers that have been required, and it does not see some wider purpose to it. For that reason we resist this amendment; otherwise we would be more than happy to have a broader debate and the affirmative procedure used. This is not a Government stealthily taking a power with some sinister import behind it; it is simply a narrow provision that only requires a negative procedure in your Lordships' House and another place, and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recognises the strength of that argument. I hope that, having heard that, the movers of the amendment will feel relaxed enough to withdraw it.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: The amendment would for the first time make clear how the much quoted and welcome notion of "end-to-end management of offenders", as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, expressed it, can be made a truly effective reality by placing a duty on all the relevant agencies in the criminal justice system in England and Wales to co-operate with one another. This would include the Prison Service, whose role in the process has been mysteriously left out of the Bill.
	As has been said in our discussions on the consistent management of offenders from beginning to end, the process must include the Prison Service, particularly when it dominates the lives of so many offenders and impacts so regularly on the Probation Service. That is not to mention its ever increasing overcrowding, its costs and the high reoffending rates.
	Moreover, given the general, official perception of a need to be tougher and more punitive, the development of community-based alternatives has simply not had the necessary profile or investment to enable them to do what they could and should be doing. I know that the Government's payback schemes are in operation, but their impact has been limited and they have not yet had the desired effect. As a result, they do not have the confidence or understanding of the sentencers or the public. This is in spite of the oft repeated mantra that custody must be used only as a last resort for the most dangerous, violent and prolific offenders, the reality of the disproportionate numbers of offenders serving short-term sentences filling the prisons, and the inevitable failure, in the midst of untenable overcrowding, to prevent more than two-thirds of the prison population from reoffending. Prisons, and their crucial relationship with probation services, cannot and must not be left out of this discussion. The amendment would put them under a duty to co-operate.
	This follows the Scottish model, which has now been in place for just over a year and was discussed briefly at Second Reading. The differences of context in England do not outweigh the similarities. The response to an early consultation process in Scotland revealed a strong resistance to a move towards a single agency, just as was the case in England and Wales when Restructuring Probation to Reduce Re-Offending was published—less than 1 per cent of responses were in favour of the centralising plan. Concerns similar to those in Scotland were expressed, in particular the wish to keep provision rooted in local areas where offending originates and where it must also be tackled if it is to work. The difference was that Scotland listened to the views of the practitioners and has created a system that is just that: rooted in localities.
	I shall briefly describe what is being done in Scotland. Eight community justice authorities have been created, which are a regional tier of statutory bodies. They consist of locally elected councillors, who ensure that criminal justice agencies are joined up and fulfil their duty to work with the Scottish Prison Service to reduce reoffending and to form effective local area partnerships to deliver integrated services for offenders both in prison and in the community. Statutory partner bodies are the police, health boards, the Scottish Court Service, significant voluntary organisations, local procurators fiscal and Victim Support Scotland. There is also a wider range of statutory partners. Additionally, there is a parallel plan for MAPPA, with a similar duty to co-operate between all the relevant agencies. Area plans are drawn up based on local need.
	At this early stage, the important lesson is that a more creative, responsive way of working is already developing between agencies and generating a lot of enthusiasm. The amendment represents a proposition akin to that of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to break down the silos and the barriers that prevent constructive partnership from working. It would make end-to-end management far easier, and more shared information means better planning. It is important that we look at such developments and learn from others' experience, especially when the goals are common and the way of working reflects what most of us believe is essential to good and effective working; namely, that it is rooted in localities and reflects the needs of all members of the community, including the offenders.
	Structures are already in existence in England and Wales that have similar potential and play an important part in choreographing local community justice. They include the crime and disorder partnerships and area criminal justice boards. Procedures are in place for local area agreements to bring the relevant agencies together in ways that suit their local circumstances. This is exactly what the LGA is calling for.
	Many of us fear that the Bill will create an overcentralised and overbureaucratic system under which providers will find it hard to create real partnerships in the interests of offenders and communities. Contestability in this atypical market could drive a wedge between providers, who should be working together in the interests of offenders and the community, rather than driving up standards as is the hope and belief. The duty to co-operate would bind agencies together in the interests of best practice in offender management and communities.
	Many agencies, including Napo and the LGA, already see great value in this way of working. I urge the Minister to give the issue serious thought and not to dismiss it quite as summarily as she did at Second Reading. It has a great deal to offer us. I beg to move.

Baroness Stern: I support the amendment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for bringing the Scottish experience into our discussions. I declare an interest as a member of the Scottish Executive's national advisory board on community justice authorities and convener of the Scottish Consortium on Crime and Criminal Justice.
	I, too, very much appreciate the material that was sent round electronically by the Ministry of Justice late on Friday. One paper on the strategy for reducing reoffending says that to deliver results we need simultaneously to tackle the education, employment, financial, housing and health barriers that offenders face while providing support to ensure that they are able to access mainstream services and are effectively reintegrated back into the community. I very much welcome the reference to mainstream services, because once people have been labelled offenders and have been described as the responsibility of one service, mainstream services can be very happy to say, "They are not our responsibility. This is someone else's business. We are already under enough pressure, thank you". The idea of a duty to co-operate will overcome any temptations in that direction.
	A duty to co-operate can help those supervising offenders to make demands on those mainstream services without which they will not be able to rehabilitate. I refer in particular to the statutory duty on prisons. It is very new in Scotland that prisons should have a statutory duty to co-operate with the community justice authorities, which can therefore make demands on them.
	In a sense, the Bill has an emphasis on individuals and their procession through a system, but there is enormous scope for co-operation much more widely than just in relation to the individual pathway of a person through a prison and out into the rehabilitation service. There are ways in which co-operation between institutions can be very beneficial. For example, Edinburgh prison has half a floor devoted to offices where people who resettle ex-prisoners have a desk, a telephone and a lockable filing cabinet. They can be there at any time, and prisoners come to see them. Another way in which co-operation can be beneficial is when prisons make a relationship with the local authority and agree to inform the authority who is coming out when and what they might need. Those are simply examples of what could flow from a duty to co-operate. I very much support the noble Baroness in her amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has foreshadowed what I am going to say, but that does not diminish the efficacy of saying it. I hope that, when I have finished, the Committee will be reassured that we are very much on the same track. We are in many ways in violent agreement as opposed to disagreement. I shall explain why, taking the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that we have already made some very significant changes in the openness with which we are participating, sharing and working together in these matters. We believe that that has had a very significant impact.
	There is no disagreement between us that working together in partnership is absolutely critical if we are to be successful. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, for highlighting the parts of the note which emphasise our aspirations and the work that we have already done. I say to her that because we wanted to make sure that these issues were mainstreamed I set up the Inter-Ministerial Group on Reducing Reoffending, on which 11 departments now sit. We are working very hard together to make sure that this is not simply the preserve of the criminal justice system but of all government. The issues in the note that the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, highlighted are those with which we are all concerned and to which we are entirely committed.
	The Scottish system is attractive but there are some very significant differences between its arrangements and those in England and Wales. The Scottish Act places a duty on Scottish Ministers, the community justice authorities and local authorities to co-operate in carrying out their respective functions in relation to relevant persons designated by order. As the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, made clear, it is important that the members of the body are all elected. This model is not transferable to England and Wales without making radical changes to our central and local criminal justice structures and does not allow for the introduction of commissioning.
	This amendment seeks to place a duty to co-operate on all bodies which deliver offender services, and on other related bodies to be defined by order. I thank the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment because it gives me an early opportunity to talk in detail about our commitment to working in partnership. This is the main purpose of the Bill. A wide variety of duties to co-operate in the delivery of probation services already exists in England and Wales. Some of these are statutory, such as crime and disorder reduction partnerships, through which we have delivered the successful Prolific and other Priority Offenders Programme; others are non-statutory, such as local criminal justice boards, which bring together the heads of all the local criminal justice agencies—police, Probation Service, Prison Service, Court Service, Crown Prosecution Service and youth offending services—in the 42 areas of England and Wales.
	We have also established reducing reoffending partnership boards in every region. These boards, convened by the regional offender managers, are proving very effective in bringing together a range of partners responsible for delivering services from outside the criminal justice system who have a part to play in addressing the wider causes of reoffending. Typical members will include representatives from Jobcentre Plus, the Learning and Skills Council, local authorities, health services and the sentencers. Indeed, on Friday I had the privilege of visiting Doncaster Prison, where I spoke to people in the resettlement wing. I saw some very impressive work there. The prison had just received £60,000 from the Home Office for a lithograph printer, which has enabled skills training to be delivered. I am given to understand that there is a skills gap in that part of Yorkshire. Some excellent training is now going on in the prison. Indeed, one prisoner has now left with sufficient skills to enable him to become a teacher trainer of printers and receives a wage equivalent to that of the senior prison officer who trained him. So there is a great deal of sharing of expertise. We are trying to replicate the outside working environment in prisons.
	I also saw the Together Women Programme in Doncaster and then moved on to Sheffield to look at the work by the partnership to reduce reoffending. Some splendid work is being done right across the piece. These partnerships are already co-operating and working together. We want to build on the successful work of these partnerships, which have been so painstakingly established over recent years. That is why we welcome the move to place local area agreements on a statutory footing in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill. I have tabled an amendment, which we will discuss later, to ensure that this applies to the new arrangements proposed in the Bill.
	I hope that I have made clear that we recognise that probation services cannot reduce reoffending on their own. Co-operation is crucial to the delivery of partnership working. Clause 3(3)(a) explicitly enables the Secretary of State to authorise or require providers to co-operate with one another and with other agencies involved in crime prevention, crime reduction or work with victims. These expectations will be clearly set out in contracts.
	From a wider perspective, the overriding point is that a duty to co-operate with external bodies would not of itself create a change of culture for those delivering probation services. We need to supplement the public sector Probation Service by working increasingly in partnership with the voluntary, charitable and private sectors, and with local communities. I do not see how this would be achieved by this amendment.
	I remind the Committee that around 50 per cent of the resources that support offenders come from outside the criminal justice system. The National Offender Management Service is already committed to working closely with all partners at a local level.At the moment the ability of local providers to co-ordinate these resources is hampered and variable. The legislation will give us the freedom to be far more flexible in the way that we do this. To safeguard against fragmentation we will make it a priority for regional offender managers to contract with probation trusts in such a way as to preserve the benefits of coterminosity. We can also make sure that those who commission do so in a way that encourages and enhances the opportunity for partnership rather than the opposite.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred to commissioning a service in a way that would not enhance co-operation and partnership. I believe that she is wrong about that. The whole purpose of our commissioning is to encourage and enhance co-operation and partnership working. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that our work with children is a very good example of how we can deliver that. We have been able to deliver that by working in partnership across the piece. We shall continue to work with our colleagues in DfES to do just that. The test bed areas that we have identified with DfES to look at the skills base and how we can work together will very much help us to embed co-operation and partnership working.
	We do not disagree in any way with the ethos; we simply say that this method of working could best be delivered by the structure that we propose. We invite the Committee's attention to the way Clause 3 is structured, enabling co-operation in a way that we think is proper. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear what the noble Lord says; that is why I invited the Committee's attention to Clause 3(3)(a). Perhaps, for completeness, it might help if I read it out. It deals with the power to make arrangements for the provision of probation services. It says:
	"Arrangements under subsection (2) may in particular authorise or require that other person ... to co-operate with other providers of probation services or persons who are concerned with the prevention or reduction of crime or with giving assistance to the victims of crime".
	That enables us, through the commissioning process, to specifically provide in contracts that those with whom we contract must co-operate. We will look later at the detailed amendments. I have tried to indicate other legislation where we already have a duty to co-operate; for instance, there is a duty on CDRPs to do so. I hope as we go through the amendments that noble Lords will see that duty reinforced again and again. The ability to commission in a way that enhances our opportunity to co-operate is very clear. We can make those provisions. It reserves for the Secretary of State the power to do that appropriately.

Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: DoesClause 3(3)(a) cover the Prison Service, a point which I was particularly interested in?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall speak also to the other amendments standing in my name in this group. Last week, I acknowledged the perception that our proposals were an unduly centralising measure. I explained that, in fact, the opposite was true. I want explore why we have come to that view.
	Under the new arrangements, commissioning will be an activity taking place at national, regional, and local levels. We do not envisage regional commissioners directly holding a myriad of small contracts. In most cases, they will agree contracts directly with lead providers who, in turn, will subcontract much of the delivery of interventions to other providers. Commissioning is primarily a local activity for lead providers to organise for themselves within a framework agreed with the regional offender manager, delivering some services in-house, letting out contracts for others and engaging in partnership with others to secure the necessary services to reintegrate offenders back into their communities.
	Working locally means working in partnership. The National Offender Management Service is already committed to working closely with all partners at a local level. As I have said, around 50 per cent of the resources that support offenders come from outside the criminal justice system. We have discussed the multitude of partnership arrangements in which probation services already play a key part. One of the most important developments in this area in recent years has been the establishment of local strategic partnerships—the LSPs to which I have referred. They bring together the public, voluntary, community and private sectors to co-ordinate the contribution that each can make to improving localities by agreeing on the priorities and co-ordinating their delivery. These priorities are developed into a local area agreement. LAAs are three-year agreements that set out the priorities for a local area and are agreed between central government and the local area represented by the local authority, and through the LSP, its key partner.
	Probation has been an increasingly active partner in the LSPs. From April this year, all LAAs must include performance indicators to assist the LSP in assessing their progress on reducing re-offending. The Local Government White Paper, Strong and Prosperous Communities, published in October last year, set out fundamentally different arrangements for LAAs. The ambition now is for LAAs to provide local authorities and partners with the flexibility and capacity to deliver the best solutions for their areas by changing the way that central government do business with them and their partners. The LAA will become an outcome-focused agreement based on streamlined priorities and targets agreed between local partners and central government, ensuring effective and efficient services for local people. Some targets will be agreed in negotiation with government and will reflect national priorities; others will be purely driven by the LSP and will concentrate on more local priorities affecting local citizens and communities. Local area agreements will then form the central delivery contract between central government, local government and their partners.
	In recognition of the critical importance of local area agreements, legislation currently being considered in the other place proposes to place them on a statutory basis. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill will place a new duty on the local authority and named local partners, including chief constables, police authorities, local probation boards, youth offending teams and fire and rescue authorities, to co-operate with each other in agreeing the relevant targets in the LAA. Therefore, as regards the earlier amendment, the duty to co-operate will be provided for by that Bill. It also places a new duty on the local authority and named partners to have regard to specific targets agreed in the LAA.
	Despite what some people have said, the proposals in this Bill today are entirely consistent with the devolutionary thrust of the local government White Paper and with the proposals in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that these amendments are proof of that.
	Noble Lords might find it useful if I take them through the effect of each of our amendments to clarify how they interrelate. Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 to Clause 2 are minor and consequential. Amendment No. 18 reflects the fact that the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill has yet to be enacted. Amendment No. 19 tidies up Clause 2(1)(c) to make clearer the effect of the cross-references to Clause 2(1)(c) in Amendments Nos. 42 and 133. Amendment No. 42 to Clause 3 states that the Secretary of State may delegate specific functions to other persons in specific circumstances, as provided for in the substantive amendment, Amendment No. 133. That amends the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill by adding the Secretary of State, when exercising his functions for ensuring the provision of probation services, to the list of partner authorities who will be placed under a duty to agree and have regard to local area agreements. That amendment states that the power to delegate, established in Amendment No. 42, also applies in this case.
	We have drafted the amendments in this way because we know, after speaking to organisations such as the Local Government Association, that we must ensure that all parts of the commissioning system are accountable under the new arrangements. This would not be achieved simply by transferring the duty to probation trusts or by giving a general duty to the Secretary of State, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has suggested in his amendment. I am sure that he will have more to say on that.
	In practice, these government amendments mean that the duties relating to local area agreements will rest on the regional offender manager as the representative of the Secretary of State. The regional offender manager will then delegate that duty to the lead provider, which in most cases will be the probation trust. The lead provider will engage with other partners in the local strategic partnership to agree and implement the local area targets. This will be strengthened by the commissioning process. Regional offender managers will be under a duty to ensure that lead providers are appropriately funded to fulfil their obligations under the LAAs, and lead providers will be under both a statutory and contractual duty to meet those obligations.
	The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill also places partner authorities under a duty to provide information and to have regard to reports by the relevant local authority overview and scrutiny committees. Our amendment places both the regional offender manager and the lead provider under a duty to co-operate with the relevant overview and scrutiny committee as regards the relevant targets in the local area agreements—although, in most cases, it will be the lead provider in the first instance. This is crucial, because it ensures that both lead providers and regional offender managers can be scrutinised by local communities for the way in which they deliver the relevant local priorities. The amendments ensure that probation providers will be placed centre-stage under the new arrangements to deliver local priorities to local people. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the amendments.
	I have taken a little time in my explanation. When I responded on the earlier amendments, I tried to indicate why the duty to co-operate was clear, but I hope that noble Lords will see how in these amendments we have sought to reinforce and underline that duty so that it will be real, immediate and accountable. I beg to move.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: Where does this leavethe role of the regional offender managers? The explanation given by the Minister suggested a secondary, possibly even a minimal role for regional offender managers in this process—certainly not one that justifies the substantial staff they are getting. If I heard her correctly, I also heard her say that regional offender managers can be scrutinised, but I was not quite clear how that process will operate. Since that is the core of a lot of our concerns about the Bill—the degree of local autonomy and the extent to whichthe commissioning authority is being shifted up from the local to the regional level, and thus to the national one—it is an important point.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I support Amendment No. 127, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on local area agreements being developed as a primary means of achieving joined-up working across agencies, to reduce reoffending and to hold those agencies to account. I was very interested to hear what the Minister has already said.
	As we know, there is already a level of integration between offender management and LAAs, and of course local partnership working is key to tackling reoffending. The Local Government Association is strongly behind this, as are we, not least because it is a means of tapping into an established structure and process, and does not require reinventing the wheel. As I have already argued, the duty to co-operate on offender management between probation services and providers would help move the reduction of reoffending close to the mainstream and change the culture of local partnership activity by integrating offender management with LAAs and LSPs. Importantly, that would also ensure that these services were more accountable to local people.
	This echoes exactly my earlier Amendment No. 2, in that the detail is vital. More clarity is needed on how this will work in practice, especially on how partnerships will be developed between local agencies and the agencies for the prevention of reoffending, and the targets for the supervision and rehabilitation of offenders. Just as the Scottish model has begun to implement, this will involve joined-up working across agencies, and it echoes our discussions earlier in this Committee and our concern that what must be in place is a coherent strategy generally and properly understood, so that confusion, overlap and fragmentation do not occur. It will also require a certain cultural change that will be both challenging and welcome.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank all those who have contributed, especially the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for raising the issue in relation to the Local Government Association. Noble Lords will know that as the Bill went through the other place, there was intensive negotiation and consideration for a number of partners, not least the Local Government Association, because we very much wanted to clarify the position in a way that would help to give confidence that we meant what we were saying. As the local government Bill was going through the other place, it was a good opportunity to reflect that arrangement here. I very much take what the noble Lord says, and I shall be happy to ensure that there is continuing satisfaction with local government on that basis.
	Much of what we are now doing is predicated on the work that has already been done with local partners through the local strategic partnerships for the creation of the local area agreements. The LSPs have been very important because they bring together agencies from across the spectrum, which have worked with increasing intensity and with increasing success.
	Turning to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, the local area agreement will include a limited number of local improvement targets—around 35—which have been agreed collectively across central government and with the local partnership as being the highest improvement priorities for the area. In addition, there will be up to 18 pre-existing statutory educational attainment targets, together with the35 others, which will be called the designated targets and will be drawn from the national indicator set described in the 2006 local government White Paper. That will give the call, but it will allow sufficient flexibility to enable those issues that are germane and pertinent to a local area to be better addressed, better targeted and better understood.
	I shall deal with the question about PCTs raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. There is a better opportunity, through the local strategic partnerships and the local area agreements, to jointly commission services. I will give an example. The regional offender manager for the south-east, Sarah Payne, is now working with the regional commissioner at four PCTs to look at how they can jointly commission health services to assist those who offend. There is an opportunity to link the local commissioning in a way that will add significant value to it. The agreement, to which I referred, will set out the priorities for the local area agreed between central government and the local area, represented by the local authority and through the local strategic partnership—its key partners—as I tried to make plain. The importance of the regional offender manager is that the manager will be responsible for doing the needs-based assessment to identify with whom he or she will need to contract.
	The majority of the work is therefore likely to be contracted through the local probation trust. However, there may be regional and national services which it would be more efficacious to commission nationally or regionally. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, gave us an indication of where that might be so—services directly attributable to sexual offending, for instance, where a regional structure may be better able to meet the needs of the client group than a local structure when the local area may have few offenders who fall into a category with that specialist need. You will therefore have to look at commissioning a service in a regionally specific point, maximising the opportunities of a number of different areas having access to it. To take up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, it is not just the subcontracting—although that is important, which is why the contractual terms will be important. Being precise about the contractual terms, to clearly define which role will be provided by which entity, is also important. I agree with the noble Lord that contracting is important.
	We already have some good examples of how CDRPs are influencing delivery on the ground. Again, I give an example of the CDRP I visited in Sheffield on Friday. I spoke to a number of partners—police officers, local authorities and others—who say that they are looking at things in a different way. The assistant chief constable—the chief constable was also there—told me about how they analyse the education issues, such as where the problem schools are, and correlate with the accident and emergency units. They are pooling this information, so each agency is now taking into account information that it would not hitherto have done, in order to set its priorities. The 44 action areas identified for the CDRPs are looking at the hot spots, which are usually for health, education and crime, and trying to work together. The local area agreements also allow them to do that.
	I hope that the Committee feels that the ability to work through local strategic partnerships and local criminal justice boards, and using the new local area agreement process, will help us to deliver better services and scrutiny at local level. The scrutiny committees are there to give oversight and a better view. That is why the local government Bill places the partnership authorities under a duty to provide information and have regard to the reports by the relevant local authority overview and scrutiny committees. Our amendment means that both the regional offender manager, as I said earlier, and the lead provider will be placed under a duty to co-operate with the relevant overview and scrutiny committee on the relevant targets in the local area agreements. In most cases, of course, the lead provider will be dealing with that in the first instance.
	I hope that that clarifies the issues, and that that the amendment can now meet with the Committee's assent. I hope it is also clear that I do not thinkthat the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is necessary, because it is assumed within the government amendments.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No. The noble Baroness has either misunderstood me, or I have been less clear than I should have. I said that the regional offender manager, Sarah Payne, was working with a health commissioner, Dr Jo Nurse, to look at provision issues. Two sets of people are commissioning at the same time—the National Health Service and the regional offender management. Working together, those two commissioning structures have an opportunity to ensure and better define how we met the needs of some vulnerable groups, one of which is offenders. We wish to enhance our ability to deliver services to them.
	Members of the Committee will also remember that the health service is now responsible for delivering health provision, both in prisons and the community. Working together in partnership is critical if we are to better understand what each must commission to meet the identified needs of the population it serves. I was merely giving that as an example of how working together will, we hope, deliver better results.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that what I said earlier underlined how much we agree with my noble friend that local delivery is important. The amendments make clear that we will be enhancing the ability to deliver locally. The regional offender manager, as I hope I clarified, is likely to use the lead provider, likely to be the probation trust, as the first port of call for delivery of local issues. However, there are needs which may or should be better met nationally or regionally. The regional offender manager will be in a position to consider how those needs can best be met. The procedure we are adopting will not pool things in the centre. The way in which we have structured it will enhance local delivery and accountability.
	That is why I hope that what I have said will be reassuring to Napo and other organisations that might be concerned that local flavour is being diluted or diminished. Our case is that it is not; in many ways, it is being enhanced. The overview and local scrutiny, the binding in of local area agreements into a statutory model, the accountability, the duty placed by the Bill on named partners—including the chief constable, the police authority, the local probation board, the youth offending teams and the fire and rescue services—to co-operate with one another, and the placing of a duty on the local authority and the named partners to have regard to the specific targets will enhance local accountability. The fact that the Secretary of State will be included means that we will also bind the regional offender managers into that structure.

Viscount Bridgeman: Amendment No. 21 is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Anelay, and I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Ramsbotham, for adding their names to it. We tabled it in response to concerns expressed by the judicial policy and practices committee ofthe Magistrates' Association about liaison with magistrates. It requires the Secretary of State to liaise with representatives of all sentencers to provide information about what is happening on the ground regarding the quality and availability of probation programmes. It also requires the Secretary of State to consult with representatives of all sentencers before he or she makes or renews a contract with any provider of probation services. Local benches can have an invaluable role to play in ensuring that the provision of probation services meets local needs. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: I support this amendment for practical reasons. I served as a magistrate, and one of the most interesting developments was the probation liaison committee in which magistrates and probation officers met regularly. That allowed us to know about programmes being promoted by the Probation Service in the area, which were tailored to individual need, and aboutthe performance of individuals within programmes. Sentencers, particularly magistrates, benefited from those liaison committees and from knowing about the work of the Probation Service and about what was happening to individuals.
	When such an arrangement has been established, we need to be very careful, particularly when talking about contract renewals. It is important to find out what has worked, what has not and what needs to be done in future before renewing a contract. The suggestion in this amendment is worthy of consideration by the Government.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I certainly support the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. It takes me back to when I was a juvenile court magistrate chairman for many years. Before the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, we had such a partnership with probation, social services and other experts sitting together and going through the whole process. As has been pointed out, that is a mutual learning process. You can certainly take in other views but, above all, you are following the effect that it has on the young offender. I very much support that.
	I also support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that that brings back into one's mind the concern about who will serve on probation trusts, if the name is to be changed and the grouping of people on them is to be very much reduced. Iam not even certain whether members of local government will be serving, or whether that will be only where it is practicable. Someone from the local authority ought to be present, but so ought others with direct experience who can follow through the process as they can now.
	I very much support the amendment and I hope to hear more about who is likely to serve on the trusts, if they change from probation boards to trusts, so that we can be gradually reassured on that point.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The amendment goes in a slightly different direction from that taken in the debates that we have just had about the provision of services per se. The Government's plans for contestability in the Bill, and their creation of the centralised NOMS/ ROMS bureaucracy, have significant budgetary consequences. The transfer of these functions from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor creates new tensions in the budget of the Ministry of Justice. We fear that effective management of the extensive bureaucracy created by the Government to run the centralised contestability system would endangerthe delivery of budgets to those who really make the difference—not, of course, the ROMS managers but the probation service providers on the ground. Costs may burgeon to pay for the centralised system. Our concern is that the transfer of the management of offenders to the Ministry of Justice could lead to funds being redirected from existing spending requirements in the old DCA to the needs of the NOMS/ROMS model and more generally to the running of the prisons.
	The amendment would ensure that the Lord Chancellor in the newly created Ministry of Justice did not allocate his budget in such a way as to remove from the court system the funds that are required for upholding the independence and effective function of the judiciary and the magistrates. This matter has been touched on twice very recently, the first time on 26 April, in a statement in this House on the creation of the Ministry of Justice. At that stage, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, put the matter clearly when he asked,
	"is the noble and learned Lord aware—as I am sure he is—of the concerns of the judge in charge of the Central London County Court as to the lack of resources? As I understood it, the statement that he made was certainly not only in relation to maintenance; he referred to a crisis in the civil justice system".
	The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor rather batted that away, but did not address the central objection. He said that,
	"judgments have to be made as to where you have to spend your resources to ensure that there is a legitimate and fair justice system".—[Official Report, 26/4/07; cols. 769-70.]
	How exactly will that be done, particularly given that the prison and probation services have been transferred to the Ministry of Justice?
	In the same debate, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, reminded the House that the revised oath for Lord Chancellor in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 reads as follows:
	"I ... do swear that in the office of Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain I will respect the rule of law, defend the independence of the judiciary and discharge my duty to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts for which I am responsible".
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, then asked whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was,
	"prepared to give us an assurance that the resources for the courts will be ring-fenced and that the resources available to the judiciary and court system will not be reduced by the demands of the prison population".—[Official Report, 26/4/07; col. 767.]
	The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor refused to give that assurance, so understandably my noble friend Lord Kingsland took up the cudgels in a further statement on 9 May, at col. 1454. I shall not repeat what he said, as the Committee may read those words. He reinforced the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, by asking how we could be sure that the money will be ring-fenced to ensure that judicial independence remains and the demands of prison and probation do not drive the policy governing judicial independence.
	I note, of course, that the Judicial Executive Board and the Judges' Council endorsed the position that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and other members of the judiciary have taken to date, and expressed their support for the continuing efforts to reach agreement. Last week, on 16 May, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice issued a press statement saying that there had been a meeting between the Judicial Executive Board and the Judges' Council to consider the present state of the working group discussions between members of the judiciary and senior Ministry of Justice officials on the constitutional safeguards to protect the independence of the judiciary and the proper administration of justice. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice had to report to the meeting that no agreement had been reached with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I therefore thought it right that we should table this amendment, particularly in light of the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice is due to appear tomorrow before the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee of another place and that he will present a full report on the current position to Parliament. That report will address the whole issue of judicial independence, which is the background to the amendment.
	Will the Minister tell the Committee exactly what sums her right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is soon to be Prime Minister, is transferring from the Home Office budget to the Ministry of Justice budget to cover the cost of NOMS and ROMS? How much has already gone since the Ministry of Justice took over these powers, and how much will be transferred in the rest of the financial year? Will the Government reconsider their position on ring-fencing so that we can be assured that there will be sufficient resources to uphold the independence and effective functioning of the judiciary? I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have found this debate interesting, but perhaps I may gently remind the Committee that machinery-of-government changes are within the province of the Prime Minister. With this Bill, we seek to understand how the clauseswill operate. It is important to differentiate between the role that will be played by a Lord Chancellor and the role which will be played by a Secretary of State for Justice. During our debate on the first groupof amendments, which I do not think the nobleLord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, had the opportunity to enjoy, we discussed the difference between thetwo.
	However, it may be important for me to do so again because the concern underlying this amendment seems to be that bringing together the responsibilities for probation with those of the judiciary will jeopardise the ability of the Lord Chancellor to exercise his responsibility towards the judiciary. I want to reassure the Committee that that is not the case, because a strong independent judiciary is fundamental to any criminal justice system. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice has a clear statutory duty to uphold the independence of the judiciary in a way that is proper, as set out in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, which my noble and learned friend will continue to do.
	On this occasion, the substance of the amendment is misconceived, although I understand why the noble Baroness uses it as a vehicle through which to have this debate. Either the Secretary of State is the Lord Chancellor, in which case he has responsibility for the judiciary and is bound by the Lord Chancellor's obligations to the judiciary, or the Secretary of State is not the Lord Chancellor, in which case he has no responsibility for the functioning of the judiciary anyway. The Lord Chancellor has a statutory responsibility under the Courts Act 2003 in regard to the courts and the judiciary to,
	"ensure that there is an efficient and effective system to support the carrying on of the business of",
	the courts,
	"and that appropriate services are provided for those courts".
	He is required by the 2003 Act to ensure, in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, that there is an efficient system to support the exercise of the business of the Supreme Court—that is, the Crown Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal—and county and magistrates' courts, and that appropriate services are provided for those courts. Under the Act, he is also required to take steps to ensure that lay justices are kept informed of matters affecting their areas and that their views are taken on issues affecting them.
	The Lord Chancellor exercises that function in line with his duty under the Constitutional ReformAct 2005 to have regard to "the need to defend" judicial independence,
	"the need for the judiciary to have the support necessary to enable them to exercise their functions",
	and,
	"the need for the public interest in regard to matters relating to the judiciary or otherwise to the administration of justice to be properly represented in decisions affecting those matters".
	The functions of the Lord Chancellor in respect of the judiciary and the financing of the courts are entrenched in the office of Lord Chancellor; that is, they cannot be removed and given to another Secretary of State without primary legislation, which we referred to earlier. The only way in which the Secretary of State responsible for the Probation Service could be both not the Lord Chancellor and responsible for the justice system would be if Parliament had agreed that this should be the case. Given that clarification, I hope that thenoble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment.
	I am delighted that the noble Baroness recited the oath that the Lord Chancellor has to take when he accepts that office. It is a powerful oath, which is aided by the only three words that she did not read out and which some may think that he will need it: "so help me God". That is the burden placed on the Lord Chancellor.
	Members of the Committee are right to say that there has been progress. There is progress in the working group and attempts have been made to reach agreement on how to expand the role of the judiciary in budget setting. Those processes are continuing and the Judges' Council has expressed its support. We do not think that ring-fencing is appropriate, as the Lord Chancellor may from time to time, depending on priority and need, have to transfer money from one part of the system to another. Crucially, he is under a statutory obligation to provide adequate funding for the effective and efficient functioning of courts. No matter what allocation he makes, his duty as described in the Act will be maintained. As I explained earlier, the functions were transferred because it was felt that that would make for a more efficient and effective criminal justice and justice system.
	Of course, the Office for Criminal Justice Reform remains. The conjoining of the work between the Attorney-General, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice remains. Therefore, the ability to deliver a just and fair system, we believe, is greatly assisted and enhanced. The figures in relation to resources will be published in the ordinary way.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for telling me that the answer to my question on why the Prison Service has been transferred to the Ministry of Justice was debated earlier; I shall read about that in Hansard and, no doubt, learn from it. But I end up rather confused. I thought that the Secretary of State who would be called the Minister for Justice would be the Lord Chancellor. However, from what the Minister said, there appear to be two separate roles; namely, the Lord Chancellor, being true to his oath, providing resources for the judges and ensuring that the rule of law is maintained and so on, and a Minister for Justice, who was referred to as a Secretary of State, fulfilling a different function. Did the Minister say that? If she did, is this news for what is about to happen when the Prime Minister elect takes office? I understood that the noble and learned Lord,Lord Falconer, was at the moment fulfilling both functions.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I say again that I am sorry that the noble Lord was unable to be with us to enjoy our earlier debate. As I made plain then, currently the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice is the same person, which may remain the case in perpetuity. However, it does not necessarily have to be so. Machinery-of-government changes are possible in relation to all offices, save the office of Lord Chancellor. The noble Lord will recall that, when we were dealing with the provisions relating to the Lord Chancellor, it was determined by both Houses that the critical core responsibility of the Lord Chancellor should not be amenable to normal machinery-of-government changes. Before any change could be made in relation to the discharge of that role, it would have to be done by primary legislation. Therefore, although those functions that are currently discharged by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice are conjoined, it would be possible at any stage to remove those functions that do not fall into the core functions of the Lord Chancellor into another department led by the Secretary of State.
	Noble Lords know that over time innumerable changes have been made, in accordance with machinery-of-government procedures, which have moved functions from one department to another—and sometimes back again. But those functions are separate and apart from the core functions that are set down in statute as belonging to the Lord Chancellor, which could not be changed. It is for that reason that the Lord Chancellor takes the oath that was read out so elegantly by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. No doubt in due course she will have aspirations of saying it in fact. If her party ever gets back into government, possibly in the year 3000, perhaps that will be the case.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I know that I have reached a milestone birthday this year, but even taking the pills I will not last that long. Under the great leadership of my right honourable friend Mr Cameron, I am sure that I will not have that long to wait. It is not that I aspire to be Lord Chancellor—I would not be learned enough—but I should certainly like to serve the country in some capacity; even from these Benches it is an honour to do so.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for pointing out the dangers that are inherent in the transfer of some of the functions—probation and prison services—to the Ministry of Justice. The Minister has said again very properly, as she did earlier today, that changes to the machinery of government are the responsibility of the Prime Minister. I have to say that since the Prime Minister is about to change, we can all hold our breath and hope that Mr Brown might think again about some of the recent changes and perhaps about the progress ofthis Bill.
	The Minister says that the budgets will be published in the ordinary way. The problem is that that is too late for our consideration of the Bill. That is one of the undercurrents causing problems for noble Lords. We do not have a feeling for what costs the Government will allocate to the commissioning processes.
	The noble Baroness says that the Lord Chancellor takes an oath, which it is true I read out in part, and therefore she is sanguine and can say. "All will be well; he will protect the independence of the judiciary". Of course we have to have faith in the fact that any Lord Chancellor would look first to maintaining the independence of the judiciary, but we have to take note of the fact that the current Lord Chief Justice and his judges have concerns about these matters. If they are concerned, so am I. I will read with care the evidence given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice tomorrow. I make no prejudgments tonight as to what action I should take regarding this amendment. I will consider carefully what he says and what the noble Baroness has rightly put forward on behalf of the Government today before deciding whether I should resuscitate this amendment, in spirit but perhaps redrafted, on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move thatthe House do now resume. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before8.35 pm.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether current methods of funding for research infrastructure are sufficient to allow all universities to engage in basic, innovative and applied research.
	My Lords, I have raised this Question on research funding because I believe that an anomaly has crept into the current system which, while all the attention has been focused on the question of metrics in the research assessment exercise, has been overlooked. If it were to persist, it would raise questions as to whether the basic aims of the dual funding system, endorsed by successive Governments and seen by many as the key element underlying Britain's research excellence, are being met.
	Let me start by talking about the dual support system and the division of government funding of university research between project-based funding from the research councils, currently some £2.8 billion a year, and the research element of the Higher Education Funding Council for England grants to universities, known as quality-related funding, which amounts to £1.3 billion a year. The purpose of QR funding has long been acknowledged as providing money for universities to meet basic infrastructure requirements. It used to be called,
	"providing the well-found laboratory",
	but that terminology now seems to have been lost. In the 2004 White Paper Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014 the Government define the purpose of QR funding as follows:
	"Quality related funding ... funds the basic research infrastructure—including the salary costs of permanent academic researchers, support staff, equipment and libraries—that gives institutions the base from which to undertake research commissioned by other funding sources; the flexibility to react quickly to emerging priorities and new fields of inquiry; and the capacity to undertake blue skies research".
	The key question for this debate is how that statement can be reconciled with a situation in which quite a few universities have during the past five years received little or no funding from the QR settlement. That situation has arisen because, after the 2001 research assessment exercise, so many departments had improved their research rating that HEFCE decided to fund only departments undertaking research judged excellent and of national—a 4 rating—or international—a 5 or 5* rating—significance. Under the formula, those rated 5 received three times and those rated 5* four times the amount received by a department of equivalent size with a 4 rating. The result has been, as intended, a concentration of funding on research-intensive universities. In 2005-06, 109 higher education institutions, approximately four-fifths of the total number, received some QR funding. However, the top 25 institutions received 84 per cent of the funding, some £900 million, while the top 10 institutions received over 50 per cent, around £650 million.
	For research-intensive universities the result has been good and is judged fair: high-quality research has been rewarded with extra funding. But the other side of the coin has been the loss of funding for other institutions, particularly the post-1992 universities, where many departments, although showing improvement, still have a relatively low rating. This raises three important questions.
	First, many of these universities have considerable research activity, often in the more applied areas, and have built up relationships with national and international companies. They also work a good deal with locally based SMEs, where personal contacts and local access are important. A recent AD Little study looking at the outcomes of research in relation to 35 post-1992 universities found that, for every £1 of public funding, over £3 worth of business-funded research was attracted, considerably more than is achieved by the older universities. Yet if QR is to,
	"give institutions the base from which to undertake research commissioned by other funding sources",
	is it right to deny this base to so many institutions? The Minister may well reply that these funding arrangements are going to change. A letter from HEFCE sent in March this year about the new arrangements for the research assessment exercise stated that,
	"the approach for science-based disciplines will be based on quantitative indicators, including bibliometric indicators of research quality and impact, external research income and postgraduate student activity".
	It also said that these indicators would,
	"begin to influence funding allocations from 2010-11",
	but not come fully into play until 2014. What about the period between now and 2010? Will the post-2001 distribution formula hold for the next five years?
	The second issue relates to the emerging areas of research. The RAE provides a review of research completed in the previous five years. The 2001 RAE, which dictates the current distribution formula, reflects the pattern of research from 1995 to 2000. Under this system, new areas of growth in the economy—for example, the creative industries, in which many of the post-92 universities run courses—receive virtually no QR funding yet contribute 8 per cent to the GDP. The same is true of nursing, the professions allied to medicine and research underpinning conservation for museums and galleries, an area with which I am particularly concerned at present.
	Again, the Minister may respond that in 2003 the Government introduced the Research Capability Fund aimed at supporting research in "emerging subject areas where the research base is currently not as strong as in more established areas". The problem is that that fund totalled only £22 million in 2006-07, so it is very small in relation to the £1.3 billion allocated under QR and, in any case, it is not clear whether it is to be continued. Is it envisaged that the Research Capability Fund will be continued post-2008 and, if so, will it be increased to meet the growing importance of these sectors in the economy?
	The third question relates to teaching. The distinction between university and other post-18 teaching institutions used to be that the staff teaching students in universities were either themselves engaged actively in research or rubbing shoulders on a daily basis with those engaged in research, read the academic journals and were au fait with the latest developments in these areas. That distinction has gradually been eroded, with university status granted recently to former teacher training colleges and the proposal to grant FE colleges degree-awarding powers. Is this deliberate policy on the part of the Government? Do they want to create a new binary divide in higher education between research-active and teaching-only institutions? Do they recognise the difficulty that that creates for courses that involve a third-year project, where students are required to undertake research for themselves? If no staff are involved in research, it is often difficult to find suitable projects and people capable of supervising them.
	This issue was raised with me by a member of the engineering staff at London Metropolitan University. He pointed out that universities such as his have many students who are the first generation in their family to go to university, who are from schools without a track record of university entrance, and who would never dream of applying to Oxford, Cambridge or most of the Russell Group universities. Is it fair to deny these students the chance of understanding what research is about or moving into the world of research themselves? Are these institutions to have no postgraduate facilities or just a limited number of faculties with them? If we are to expect third-year students to undertake realistic third-year projects in science and engineering subjects, what about the "well-found" laboratory? Has that concept got completely lost?
	In conclusion, as things stand there is an innate inconsistency in current policy on funding research, an inconsistency that has got lost in the debate about metrics: while preaching support for the dual-support system of funding research and defining that system as providing, through QR funding, resources to support "a base from which to undertake research", the distribution formula used to allocate QR provides little or no QR funding for many universities.
	I have raised three issues. First, as many of these universities are engaged in research of immediate interest to business, are they to be denied the resources to help create and maintain this base? The second issue is about new and emerging areas of the economy and how research for such areas is to be supported. The third issue relates to teaching and the need for research-active staff and a well-found laboratory to support undergraduate and graduate teaching. These are important questions for the future of our universities. I am delighted that so many noble Lords are joining me in this short debate although sorry that it means so little time for them to make their points. I look forward to hearing what is said and to the Minister's response.

Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I should like to focus attention on oral health, particularly the potential for QR income distribution from the current and future RAEs to impact upon our dental schools and the education of future dentists. I declare my interest as a dental surgeon.
	Despite government assurances that dentistry is in good order, the embarrassing queues outside new NHS dental practices are confirmation that oral disease is the most common of human diseases and is associated with significant suffering. But how many of us appreciate that there is now convincing evidence that oral diseases such as periodontitis are causally associated with cardiovascular disease, stroke and adverse diabetic outcomes? Indeed, treatment of periodontitis improves glucose control in diabetics, thereby reducing long-term complications and associated morbidity. As our population ages and obesity statistics grow, the public expect to retain their teeth for life. This is a huge public health problem for the future for which we should be planning right now.
	The latest ONS adult dental survey demonstrated that we have reduced edentulism dramatically, but the prevalence rates of severe periodontitis, while 10 per cent in adults, are as high as 85 per cent in thoseover 65. Dental decay, rather than decreasing, has shifted to disadvantaged groups and the elderly. The National Diet and Nutrition Survey has shown that nutritional status is better for those with their own teeth, thus tooth retention is vital to general health and well-being as well as to quality of life.
	This improvement is attainable if we invest in basic and clinical research which aims, among other issues, to improve identification, diagnosis and treatment of high-risk groups. All these measures require an improved understanding of the scientific basis of oral disease, improved liaison of dental researchers with industry and the maintenance of a vibrant research culture in our dental schools. In 2001-02 the NHS cost the Treasury £60 billion, and NHS spend on oral and dental care approached 5 per cent of that figure. However, dental schools receive less than 2 per cent of the funding from research councils that medical schools receive. For funding from charities, that amount is less than 1 per cent. That is disproportionate, both to NHS spend and to public health demand. Any further reduction will have a disproportionately greater negative effect on oral health research than other, better funded disciplines.
	The problem of obtaining research funding in dental schools is negatively impacting on the recruitment and retention of dental clinical academics. A further fall of 6 per cent in dental clinical academic posts occurred in 2004. That trend continues through to the present. Reductions in QR funding will impact hugelyon teaching quality and retention of staff in the13 undergraduate UK dental schools and two newer graduate-entry facilities. Exclusion of schools from basic research infrastructure funding could be catastrophic, denying them the funding for development of research portfolios and the need for the future generations of dental care professionals to be trained in an environment rich in research and academic excellence.
	There is a major concern that, as a result of the current RAE, some universities may decide to designate their dental schools as teaching-only. That would signal a dumbing down of our dental training, currently among the best in the world. It is of extreme concern that the two new schools may well move in this direction. It is essential that the Government recognise that small disciplines such as dentistry would suffer irrevocably under a purely metrics-based system. It is impossible to directly compare dental and medical research in terms of publication citation indices and research income. Medical research attracts disproportionately higher levels of funding relative to the public health demand and spend on medicine. To use a purely metrics-based assessment in dentistry would simply exacerbate the research funding shortfall in oral and dental research.
	The situation is so worrying that the British Society for Dental Research has recently published a position paper, a strategic review of oral and dental research in the United Kingdom. In this detailed and objective appraisal the society concludes, among other things, that oral and dental research is indeed underfunded. A dedicated national oral/dental research charity must be established. The government proposals under Best Research for Best Health and the proposed revisions to the RAE post-2008 provide a major threat to orphan disciplines such as dentistry. I urge the Minister to recognise the serious plight of research funding for UK dental research and appreciate that a concerted effort is now required at senior government level to increase funding for this critical aspect of the health of people in this country.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for introducing this debate. She is well known in this House as an indefatigable supporter of British universities. I declare an interest as president of the council of the University of Chester. In my 10 years in that post the institution has evolved from a small church college of higher education into a university that is three times larger than it was and has an income four times larger. Ten years ago the college had no professors and was academically dependent on the University of Liverpool for the award of all its degrees. We now have taught degree-awarding powers and, we believe and hope, are about to be given research degree-awarding powers. The academic distinction of the staff of the university has grown, with a significant and expanding number of members of staff of professorial rank. A growth in income and student numbers has enabled us in recent years to appoint a large number of new staff, often young, the great majority of whom have doctorates and proper aspirations for further research. For "the University of Chester" you could read many other post-1992 new universities in this country, although I think we have expanded rather faster than most.
	The research funding methodology that has applied in recent years has limited our ability to develop the culture of research in the university, although we have done quite a lot within the limited resources we have had available through various partnerships, particularly in applied research. We have also expanded our research by concentrating on certain clusters of excellence within the overall university estate. We need to honour the perfectly proper aspirations of—especially, but not exclusively—the new staff we have appointed in recent year. Our anxiety is that in the highly selective research funding methodology of recent years the ability of staff to conduct research has been constrained, and that those constraints are in danger of being even sharper if the research funding is applied even more selectively in future. There is a case for such concentration and selectivity in relation to basic research in the sciences, where the capital cost of equipment is high, but the arguments are much less compelling in the arts and humanities.
	In addition, in relation to the whole area of knowledge, there is an increasing need for applied research to enable the huge range of human knowledge we now have to be used effectively for the benefit of an increasingly complex society, and not only for economic benefits. For example, the University of Chester has a growing involvement in improving healthcare delivery, with seven practice development units in partnership with NHS trusts focusing on different aspects of improvements in the nursing profession. Such applied and often interdisciplinary research can easily fall outside the traditional categories by which research has been recognised and assessed and the research infrastructure resourced. Research councils in particular can be rather conservative in their approaches, but university research is intrinsically concerned with innovation and crossing previous boundaries, so it needs a good deal of freedom to be given to the universities along with the funding provided to them.
	Many of the post-1992 universities will inevitably remain teaching-led institutions, and I expect that this will be the case with Chester as well. Any institution worthy of being called a university, however, must also be informed by a broad research ethos. Any university teacher who has no opportunity to develop research interests, even if they are necessarily limited and constrained, is unlikely to sparkle and inspire as a teacher. That is true at all levels, but not least in the third-year undergraduate case to which reference has been made.
	I am continually amazed by the dedication of the university staff, despite burgeoning bureaucracy and the fact that a considerable increase in teaching loads as a declining unit of resource has pushed up student-staff ratios. The comparative salaries of university staff have also suffered, and in some local areas near me it is difficult to recruit and retain staff in IT, law and education. Yet on professional contracts which encourage research, many work very hard indeed to contribute to the research culture to which any university must surely aspire. We cannot make do with a university in the dumbed-down mode to which the noble Lord just referred.
	The Government have a stated and admirable goal of a 50 per cent participation rate in higher education. There is still some way to go to achieve this, and a key route will surely be through seeking a widespread culture of research, pure but also applied, across the whole HE sector, including in teaching-led universities. Will the Minister confirm that this is indeed the Government's aim?

Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, it was right in 1992 to abolish the binary line which had so arbitrarily and invidiously divided polytechnics and universities. What we made clear, however, at that time—I was Higher Education Minister—was that this policy was not a green light for institutions to drift from their previous missions. We expected the post-1992 universities to be funded to continue to concentrate on what they were best at: vocational higher education and applied research. I asked every polytechnic, before the legislation reached the statute book, to write a mission statement as an anchor.
	We made it crystal clear that while post-1992 universities should be free to make their individual cases for research funding, they should not expect public funding to be available to convert every institution in the system into a research university. Basic research would continue to be relatively concentrated, though we were enthusiastic that ties between business and all universities should be strengthened to generate more applied research. The RAE had already achieved important benefits in identifying research quality and promoting more businesslike management of research, and that drive would continue. With the imperative to expand undergraduate numbers and their teaching, the resources would not be available from the public purse to provide substantial QR funding across the enlarged and enlarging sector.
	The harsh reality is that there has not been enough money available through public expenditure at any time since 1992, notwithstanding the very large increases that this Government have provided for research, to pay for the QR funding that post-1992 institutions so eloquently demand. Research gets more expensive, while the leading research universities across the world—the league in which a small number of ours must remain—develop more resources, new endeavours and new achievements. The Government and HEFCE have had no option but increasingly to concentrate resources for research. This process has been compounded—and it had to happen—by full economic costing, which means more money for no more volume. The result has of course been that not only has there been precious little left for the modern universities, but the squeezed middle—a number of universities that once seemed secure as research universities—is sliding down the research funding slope. These are painful and difficult circumstances. The RAE methodology in prospect after 2008, metrics, will not offer a reprieve.
	I shall make two observations which, though not quite upbeat, are positive. First, it is valid and honourable for a university to be a teaching university. Resources of money and time in universities publicly funded for teaching but not research should permit scholarship, keeping abreast of significant developments in an academic field. In that way, the teaching of students will be informed directly by research. In America, this has been accepted for a long time. Secondly, there can be scope in every modern university to develop at least one or two centres in which there is research excellence, funded perhaps by concentration of a continuing small ration of QR and by private resources. In these areas, students can experience teaching informed and inspired at first hand by new research.
	Ministers should be candid in the run-up to the 2008 RAE, as perhaps they were not sufficiently before the 2001 RAE, that while they will do all they can in the face of valid competing demands for education funding to preserve funding for university research, there will be no cornucopia from which to reward all those whose research peer review has recognised as good but not the very best. I am sorry to speak so starkly, but I cannot criticise the judgment of Ministers that research funding should be concentrated and that universities should embrace very different roles.

Lord Rees of Ludlow: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has raised some timely concerns in this debate, but it is only fair to acknowledge that these are partly the consequence of this country's success in raising the proportion of young people participating in higher education. We are fortunate to be the only country outside the US to have several research universities near the top of the international league.
	As a scientist and university professor, I gladly acknowledge two of this Government's achievements. The first is the introduction of top-up fees, despite the political capital that had to be expended by the key Ministers involved. Without these fees, the issues that we are addressing would be even more acute. The second achievement is the substantial and continuing real-terms growth in the budget for the research councils.
	However, other countries are not standing still. The standing of our universities depends on their remaining attractive to versatile talent from overseas as well as the UK. Students will expect higher quality in return for their higher fees. We need to ensure that our graduates meet the Bologna criteria.
	If we want to retain research excellence within a diverse university system that depends on public funds, some system like the RAE is a necessary evil as a discriminatory tool for distributing scarce resources that underpin research. It is then crucial to decide how steep the differentials should be. How much more should a really strong department receive than a fairly strong department? How must we diverge from the uniformity of universities on mainland Europe if we want to nurture peaks of international excellence? What should be the floor level of support for any university? These are difficult issues, but what motivates this debate is concern that the concentration must not go too far.
	There are obviously a few universities, each with many strong departments, which receive the lion's share under any funding formula. However, despite the trend towards concentration, there is at leastone top-rated department in more than 50 of our universities. These strong departments were not all planned for. Many stem from exceptional individuals who were able in the 1960s and 1970s to build up strong groups. It is important for the country that these opportunities are not choked off. Recruitment into the less well funded universities would be handicapped if prospective faculty perceived that, however enterprising they were, they had no chance of emulating the careers of those who built up, for instance, space research in Leicester and archaeology in Bradford.
	Good researchers should be nurtured in all universities, but that is not enough. All our students should be taught by faculties whose expertise extends well beyond the standard curriculum and whose teaching is nourished by research, scholarship and reflective inquiry. That is what distinguishes a university from further education. This does not require that all universities should offer PhD programmes in all subjects. Some of the best undergraduate education in the United States is offered by liberal arts colleges that teach undergraduates only, but professors in those institutions none the less pursue individual research and scholarship. That is just one benign example of the benefits of diversity in American higher education. We need to foster such diversity here—diversity of funding and admission—with not just one league table but many, measuring excellence of different kinds.
	Surely a prerequisite of anything that merits the title of university is that the academic staff should be scholars and researchers and a resource of expertise to the nation. This requires that they have enough support and time to pursue projects outside their narrow teaching duties. If that does not come via QR allocations, we need some other route—and that is why we should welcome this debate.

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Sharp for introducing this important debate and for her clear and passionate analysis of the inconsistencies in the funding of research. It has been a most interesting debate.
	I come to this from the point of view of the students. I believe that students in all universities are entitled to expect research-informed teaching, to be informed by the latest thinking in their field of study and taught to develop for themselves skills of critical inquiry and reflection as part of their higher education study. To me that is the crucial difference between teaching in universities and schools—and in that I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. But they will not get this unless all institutions providing higher education courses leading to degrees get funding from somewhere to do research. We have heard this evening about the various problems with the funding for that.
	We should also value and reward high quality teaching. That is one of the very important areas of excellence that all universities and colleges should develop. I think that we are all agreed that research underpins all that—even the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, in a contribution that he himself described as "stark". It is significant that the inflationary uplift for research funding has been greater than that provided for teaching. Is that an indication of the relative importance attributed to each or recognition of the fact that we must have research if we are to have good teaching? As we have heard, quality-related funding is supposed to be for supporting research infrastructure and postgraduate teaching in all universities, but actually it ends up boosting facilities in the few top research-intensive universities, leaving many without anything. We have also heard from academics how the peer-review part of the RAE is a time-consuming mammoth which needs urgent review and refinement and the role that metrics, or measurable outcomes, should have.
	While we wait for this review—I believe until 2014 for its full implementation—the Government's two sticking-plaster responses have not solved the problem. The Research Capability Fund introduced in 2003 was, at £22.1 million last year, pretty small in relation to the total £1.3 billion allocated under QR. It was aimed at supporting research in emerging subject areas where research is scarce and there are few existing projects for assessment, such as art and design, communication, media, dancing, drama, nursing, social work and sports studies. That is not a lot of money to go round all those subject areas.
	Secondly, the £75 million time-limited core funding which came from HEFCE in January to support physics, chemistry, engineering and metallurgy departments that were in danger of closing down was also not very much when spread around to those who needed it—not even enough per student to keep a "well-found laboratory" going. These departments will have to survive on this until the various initiatives about which we heard in our debate last week on science teaching have the desired effect in creating more demand from new students from schools.
	There are many problems with the QR. Naturally, vice-chancellors of research-intensive universities rated five and five starred like it because they benefit from massive influxes of funds. However, it now provides nothing for those universities rated lower than four, even though some of their research may be of national significance, and it has a very strong effect on their teaching. Many universities finding themselves in this situation manage to raise large amounts of research funding from the private sector, but as my noble friend Lady Sharp said there is no doubt that winning QR money actually levers in more from the private sector, so those that do not get it feel a double whammy.
	I come back to the importance of the quality of teaching. Is the whole notion of the "well-found laboratory" to be ditched? Does the Minister agree about the importance of having undergraduates as well as graduates taught by research-active staff? Is the infrastructure support for teaching now to be subsumed under the Science Research Investment Fund? SRIF has made a big difference but cannot be fully replaced by the "endangered species" funding. As my noble friend said, we do not even know whether that is to be continued anyway after the initial announcement.
	Much of the debate about the future of the RAE has been about the pros and cons of metrics but the issue of fair distribution across the universities has been neglected. That can be disastrous, as the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, mentioned in relation to dental schools.

Baroness Morris of Bolton: My Lords, I echo other words of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, for introducing this debate with the weight of the very great experience she brings. I enjoyed the knowledgeable contributions of all who spoke in it.
	We welcome the decision to look further into research funding for universities. The RAE, for all its initial success in raising standards, had become far too demanding. In replacing it the Government must be very careful not to perpetuate the same problems. Universities must now be allowed to concentrate on serious research rather than navigating time-consuming bureaucracy.
	We have always strongly supported higher education, which unquestionably benefits the economy as a whole. The Government must help sustain a level of innovative research that will protect Britain's continued status as a world leader. Government proposals have not been universally welcomed. The Coalition of Modern Universities expressed deep disappointment that nothing will be done to promote greater research capacity. This compares unfavourably with other countries with rapidly expanding research programmes. Is the Minister confident that the RAE replacement will allow British universities to compete more effectively with countries such as China and other emerging economies?
	The proposals are certainly not without their flaws. We understand the background but is it not extraordinary that the RAE 2008 and the introduction of the new funding will both take place in the very same timeframe? What incentive is there to go through the RAE if it will not affect the funding level? Surely this openly contradicts the Government's own ambition to reduce the administrative burden on universities. The Government's recent record on funding has come under widespread attack. What impact does the Minister believe the changes will have on those university departments currently facing closure due to claimed funding shortfalls?
	Although the RAE 2001 results were excellent,the sector was extremely disappointed with the Government's underwhelming response. Successful departments were not able to build on their success and roughly a fifth of institutions will now be hit with a real terms cut in HEFCE funding. What additional sources of support, if any, will the Government make available to these institutions?
	There are other ways our research programmes might be more dynamic. What incentives are given to British industry, for example, to become a more active partner in the higher education system, which would greatly benefit the university process?
	We seek several reassurances from the Minister. For all the valid criticism of the RAE, it was invaluable in rewarding excellence, improving research planning and providing accountability for the allocation of public funds. Are the Government confident that the new proposals will do the same? We strongly urge that peer review should continue at some level, though clearly it should be light touch and with fewer panels. The sector recognises expert assessment as the most significant and reliable litmus test.
	Government proposals for income-based metrics lead naturally to the concerns so forcefully expressed by my noble friend Lord Colwyn. Most critically, they do not appear to correlate funding with quality. We would be deeply suspicious of any system that didnot reward quality at all. Some form of quality measurement must continue, which should not be discrete from the allocation of funds. Exclusive use of income metrics could easily breed mediocrity, particularly in the arts.
	If universities know that they are being judged other than on quality, they may gear their research to the mechanics of this assessment process. It wouldbe seriously detrimental to research standards if universities attempted to second-guess criteria to secure funding. The new system must encourage genuine research rather than expertise in ticking boxes.
	We also require reassurance on the system's scope. It should continue to serve the whole country's interests and, crucially, to promote all disciplines. We have previously expressed concerns that the arts, humanities and social sciences may get left behind, with the focus on science and technology. All those disciplines are important in the education and development of our workforce. Can the Minister confirm that there will not be undue funding bias towards particular disciplines?
	Finally, the cost and administrative burden of the system are critical. We warmly support the Government's stated aim to reduce the burden of research assessment, but it is essential that any new model actually achieves this. I finish by agreeing with my honourable friend in another place, Boris Johnson—this time not in a toga—who said:
	"The current RAE is driving academics to distraction and it is high time it was reformed. Its demands were continually cited as a reason why lecturers had no time to teach students properly. Whatever the Government put in its place must allow universities to get on with serious research without pointless form filling and the production of mountains of academically worthless papers".

Lord Adonis: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for raising this issue of research funding, and I am very grateful for the other contributions that have been made this evening.
	The Government's short answer to the Question is: yes, we do believe that,
	" the current methods of funding for research infrastructure are sufficient",
	for the needs of all universities, when distributional factors—the noble Baroness raised many distributional factors—are set against the substantial and sustained increases in total funding that have taken place across the sector in the past 10 years. Some of the contributions presupposed that there were cuts or threats to funding. I stress that in all the main areas of funding we have seen very substantial real terms increases in the past 10 years. The QR funding has risen in the past 10 years from £769 million to £1.4 billion. The Research Council funding that she also referred to has risen in the past 10 years from £1.28 billion to £2.63 billion.
	The Science Research Investment Fund—SRIF—which has been a significant source of funding, particularly for science laboratories in the recent past and which set in place an area where there was no sustained significant funding before, provided in the first SRIF round, which was 2002-04, £600 million. In the second SRIF round, from 2004-06, it provided £845 million, and in the third SRIF round, which is taking place at the moment for 2006-08, it provided £903 million for universities in England. That is a new source of funding that does not succeed any substantial source of funding that went before. In terms of distribution of that £2.35 billion that has gone through SRIF funding since 2002, yes, it is true that 64 per cent of it has gone to Russell group universities, but 12 per cent has gone to 1994 group universities, 6 per cent to post-1992 institutions and 18 per cent to other institutions. If you mapped the actual funding, leaving the distributional issues aside, institution by institution, virtually all of them will have had a good to excellent deal and will have seen real increases over the past 10 years. That is a very significant factor that needs to be set against the distributional issues that the noble Baroness was right to raise.
	Elaborating further, the Question raises three distinct issues: first, whether we should expect all universities and all types of university to carry out expensive basic research. My noble friend Lord Howarth gave a characteristically forthright view on that. The second issue is whether the levels of public funding available to universities are sufficient to maintain the infrastructure necessary to allow research to take place. The third issue is about the current state of the research infrastructure and how we will continue to improve it. Let me address each of those issues in turn.
	To hear some of the rhetoric used about university funding, the House might be forgiven for thinking that academics at half the universities in the country did not engage in research at all, but in teaching alone. That of course is not the case; as the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow, so rightly said, all academics should be scholars whether or not they have the ability to participate in substantial pure research. In many areas of research, the overhead costs of what might be called pure research are not great, and in the age of the internet and the personal computer—and the mobile phone and the BlackBerry—the barriers to effective research in many areas are lower than ever before. In the humanities and social sciences, physical proximity to a copyright library, for example, is nothing like the requirement it used to be for the researcher. The issue, rather, is the extent to which, in areas where research is expensive and requires an additional infrastructure, we should seek to concentrate funding on institutions with a critical mass of highly-rated researchers for the purpose.
	Before 1992, as my noble friend Lord Howarth noted, a large part of our present university sector was not funded additionally to carry out research at all, but that did not stop some such institutions from enjoying high research reputations. The former Portsmouth and Oxford polytechnics are two examples of that, but there are others. If we fast-forward a decade, we found in the most recent research assessment exercise that 96 universities, new and old, representing more than three-quarters of the sector, possessed at least one world-class research unit and that 55 per cent of all researchers were working in a department with a five or five-star rating. That compares with just 31 per cent in the previous exercise. Although it is true that the decisions that were taken after the RAE were to concentrate funding more in terms of ratings, a far larger proportion of departments received those high ratings. We would be surprised if the next and final such exercise, which will take place next year, did not show further progress in that respect.
	It is not the case that newer universities carry out as much additionally funded researchas Russell group universities across as wide a range of subjects or at such a uniform level of excellence. As noble Lords have noted, five Russell Group universities each receive more quality-related funding than all of the new universities combined. There are many reasons for that. Some new universities have been developing research strengths for less than 15 years, which is a short time in which to build an institution-wide research ethos. More importantly, as my noble friends Lady Warwick and Lord Howarth stressed, many other universities rightly see their main mission as lying elsewhere—teaching undergraduates or engaging with business and the community, including universities at the applied end of the research spectrum. Most do not have the legacy of infrastructural development that is needed to pursue cutting-edge research in high-cost scientific and technological fields.
	That does not mean that newer universities are or should be research-free institutions. A university may decide that its strengths lie in a particular direction, but support from public funds to deliver a valuable research mission is, and will continue to be, available to all. That is why, in answer to the Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, the next and final RAE in 2008 will generate not the stepped rating system of five, five-star, and so on, that featured in previous exercises, but a more subtle institutional research profile that should make it easier for pockets of research excellence to be recognised more fairly in funding terms.
	Instead of grading a whole department as, say,a four, a five or a five-star, as happened in the previous RAE, the new profile will show what percentage of a department's research activities is excellent, what percentage is moderate and so on. This will help better to reward relatively research-inactive departments that, nevertheless, have a small number of active researchers. Many of those departments are in the newer universities and I was glad to hear a welcome for that approach from the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow, who, as master of Trinity College, Cambridge, might have been expected to have a more narrow and self-interested view. We are glad that he very much has the interests of other institutions at heart.
	When an institution without much of a track record wishes to build a stronger research mission, financial help to build a research infrastructure will continue to be provided through the Research Capability Fund that we created in 2003. In response to the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Sharp, I accept that the total sum of money in the fund is comparatively small. However, its effect isbig, especially on smaller, less research-intensive universities. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester might wish to know, for example, that this year less than one-twentieth of the University of Chester's core funding for research has come from quality-related grants. The whole of the rest is coming from the Research Capability Fund. So, for many institutions which are new to the research arena, this is making a substantial difference.
	The director-general of the Russell group, speaking at a recent conference, described the higher education system that we inherited in 1997 as "regressiveand underfunded". One consequence of that underfunding was an enormous backlog in research facilities, especially in science. That is why, in 2001, an independent study estimated that £2.7 billion of remedial investment was required in science research facilities alone—a testament to decades of underfunding. Most of the backlog was obviously to be found in pre-1992 universities, whose research infrastructure was decaying alarmingly, but that position has now changed.
	Research capacity takes years, or even decades, to develop and in the sciences, above all, it takes money. In 2002, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, told the House that under the Labour Government,
	"we have seen a considerable amount put into the science budget, largely for infrastructure and capital and equipment spending".—[Official Report, 27/11/02, col. 842].
	As I said earlier, a considerable amount more has been put in since then, and the progress that we have made in addressing the backlog has continued. The Joint Infrastructure Fund and its successor, the Science Research Investment Fund, have together allowed remedial capital investment worth almost £3 billion to be put to good use, and the investment backlog is being reduced to a manageable size. Given the figures that I have set out, I think I can say in response to the noble Baroness that the concept of the well-found laboratory is alive and well. Indeed, there are now many more such laboratories than there were in our universities 10 years ago.
	Research infrastructure is not just about the bricks and mortar; it is also about universities' ability to pay researchers' salaries. The view that the country can afford only to fund fewer, but better, researchers, as was very much the view 10 years ago, has now been replaced by an acceptance that the national interest demands that we fund more and better research. During the past three years of the previous Government, quality-related research funding for universities in England rose by a total of only 1.8 per cent. During the first three years of the current Government, it rose by 29 per cent, and it has continued to rise year on year ever since.
	I can confirm to the House that universities will continue to enjoy full discretion on how they spend these grants. The grants not only provide a basic structure within which research funded by the research councils, charities and the private sector can take place but they also underwrite a very large amount of the research that universities carry out, particularly in the arts, humanities and social sciences.
	However, these funds have not been the only source of support for the research infrastructure. As we discussed in detail during the debate opened by my noble friend Lady Warwick on 27 April, since 2004, the Higher Education Innovation Fund has provided more than £100 million a year to help institutions to develop their capacity to engage with business andthe community. This is an initiative from whichnewer universities, in particular, have benefited. Indeed, 41 per cent of the £110 million a year available under the current phase of the Higher Education Innovation Fund is going to the newer universities, compared with 28 per cent to the Russell group and 31 per cent to the pre-1992 universities. So there has been an extremely welcome distribution of funding in the direction of newer universities from that fund.
	Those facts need to be considered alongside the large-scale increases that we have seen in Research Council budgets over recent years—including the budget of the Arts and Humanities Research Council, whose funding has risen from £68 million in 2004-05 to £97 million in 2007-08—the massive expansion of student numbers that we have accomplished while maintaining the real value of the unit of resource, and, above all, the vital cash injection that variable fees, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rees, are now bringing to our universities. Together, these policies are underpinning growth in every part of the sector. We believe that in the decisions that we take after the RAE next year, we will be able to sustain that growth and ensure that universities with all types of missions continue to thrive in both research and teaching.

Lord Northbourne: There was a sense of self-interest in my intervention. This is a probing amendment, as I want to draw attention to the importance of addressing the causes of crime, whether they lead to offending or reoffending, although I recognise that the focus of the Bill is on reoffending.
	There was a time some 10 years ago when the Government rightly laid great stress on addressing the causes of crime. Why has that objective got lost? I believe that that is the only strategy that is likely to effect a major reduction in the revolving door of offending, prison and reoffending. I am encouraged by the fact that in our debate on Clause 1 frequent reference was made to the causes of offending, of which many were mentioned, including alcohol addiction, drug addiction, mental health problems, housing difficulties and unemployment.
	One that was not mentioned, but which I have heard of increasingly recently, is that we live in a society whose main purpose and measure of success, status and respect seems to be the acquisition by each person of more and yet more material goods. Researchers have shown that the inability to participate in that rat race causes depression, loss of sense of purpose and even the loss of a sense of identity in society. Under those circumstances, people join gangs to take the risks of crime—indeed, the risks of crime are probably therapy, which relieve the utter boredom of an unfulfilled life. I have heard that argument in the context of the extraordinarily good results shown by voluntary work for prisoners.
	If probation services are to reduce reoffending, should they not focus on the causes of crime? Would it not be cheaper and better for all if the same effort were put into reducing the causes of offending as what is now spent on trying to control and reform offenders? Should that not be a major objective of the Secretary of State in this Bill? I beg to move.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that the Prime Minister has not dropped the phrase,
	"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime".
	The Government remain committed to addressing the causes of crime. Indeed, I remind the Committee that, although some of the erstwhile responsibilities of the Home Office have transferred to the Ministry of Justice, others have not. The crime strategy remains with the Home Office, as do crime prevention and crime reduction. I now have the proud title of Minister of State for Crime Reduction. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that my attention will not stray from the causes.
	Let me reassure the Committee about a few things. Noble Lords will have heard me mention the reducing reoffending alliances, the reducing reoffending plan and the reduction that we have seen in the level of reoffending. It is important to consider the cross-government approach to that reduction. In November 2005, I published the National Reducing Re-offending Delivery Plan, which sets out the cross-government commitment to improving outcomes for offenders across seven pathway areas.
	The first pathway area is accommodation. Getting offenders into accommodation is the foundationof successful rehabilitation, resettlement and risk management, and it underpins many of the other pathways. There is the skills and employment pathway area, because lack of employment is one of the factors associated with reoffending. There is the finance, benefit and debt pathway area, which is about ensuring that offenders have sufficient lawfully obtained money, because financial security is the key to their rehabilitation. There is the health pathway area, because people within the criminal justice system often experience significant problems gaining access to adequate health and social care services and often have unaddressed needs that prevent them from taking advantage of facilities that are available to them.
	There is the drugs and alcohol pathway area, because, as Members of the Committee who have participated in our debates know, those issues impinge on offenders' ability to recover and lead a law-abiding life, and the criminal justice system is uniquely placed to tackle their drug use and break the cycle of reoffending. There is also the children and families pathway area. Children and families are an issue that I know the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, feels passionately about, and I share his passion. They play a significant role in supporting an offender to make and sustain changes that reduce reoffending. Finally, there is the attitudes, thinking and behaviour pathway area. There is an international evidence base on the effectiveness of cognitive skills programmes for offenders. All those pathway areas go to the causes of crime. If we are to reduce reoffending, we have to address those issues aggressively. Part of the purpose of the Bill is to get all those who could help in that endeavour to do so.
	There is an opportunity to conjoin these two agendas. When reducing reoffending was in the Home Office, it was part of crime reduction and crime prevention. Just because part of that function has moved to another department does not mean that those issues should no longer be conjoined. We are looking to see how we can brigade things across government even more. The work of the inter-ministerial group remains of critical importance.
	I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We have not explicitly said "crime prevention" and "crime reduction", but we still have the 15 per cent target for crime reduction, and we are committed to fulfilling it. Part of the reason why we have 44 action areas is that we have identified those areas that are likely to contribute most to our reducing crime agenda. We are working with them on the causes in their area. Local area agreements, local strategic partnerships, crime and disorder reduction partnerships and all the other issues that we have talked about are all going towards crime reduction and crime prevention. That is what the work with youth offending teams, schools, safer school partnerships and all the other matters is about. We touched on those issues when we had the long—two hours—debate at the beginning of the Committee. Many of these issues were taken up in that debate.
	I thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for tabling his amendment. I know that it adds,
	"the reduction of the causes of re-offending",
	to the probation aims but, as I mentioned on a number of occasions during our debate last week, the wording of the probation aims is derived from the precedents already enshrined in legislation in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, which currently governs the Probation Service, and in the Criminal JusticeAct 2003, which sets out the purposes of sentencing. Both the aims and purposes of sentencing already refer to the reduction of reoffending—an aim that can hardly be achieved without considering the causes of reoffending.
	Although I am sympathetic to the motivation behind the amendment, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that it is unnecessary. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting. We have already done work on that basis which, we can demonstrate, has properly identified those causes as issues that we must address effectively.
	In the light of those points, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, confident that what he said powerfully about crime reduction, crime prevention and the causes of crime has been heard and is totally understood. Indeed, it is already embedded in our plans to reduce the level of crime in our country.

Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. On a technicality of the conduct of this House, I have a paper headed Wednesday 16 May, Offender Management Bill, in which AmendmentNo. 26 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 25 and 11. Clearly, some Front-Benchers received a different grouping, but no one had the courtesy to send it to me. I am sorry about that, but I guess that some are more equal than others. We will live with that, but I wanted to make it clear that it is not my fault that I did not address the amendment at the time.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I certainly agree with the noble Lord that reducing reoffending is part of reducing offending. In order to reduce reoffending, the Probation Service must address the issues to which I have already referred. Those relate to the seven pathways. Addressing the seven pathways could also be used as crime prevention and reduction. Therefore, if we consider what we are doing with health, schools, in the DCMS in finding alternative activities for those currently involved in criminal activity, our work with safer school partnerships and other initiatives, all of that goes to reduce offending in a crime prevention strategy. The two are intertwined.
	I should tell the Committee that consideration is being given about whether we should rebadge the reducing reoffending inter-ministerial group andthe reducing reoffending alliances as "reducing offending". The two departments are working closely with all the other departments to ensure that it is understood that reducing crime is everyone's business. It is not an issue for the criminal justice system alone. We share that responsibility across government. It was for that reason that I was very pleased that all departments that I invited to join the reducing reoffending inter-ministerial group did so with alacrity.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The amendments tabled in my name give effect to two commitments I made at Second Reading. The first is to include in the general duty to consult a specific requirement to consult Welsh Ministers on probation provisions in Wales. The second is to require providers to publish plans.
	For the avoidance of doubt and confusion, perhaps I may begin by explaining the technical nature of the three amendments before going on to discuss the substance. In the current version of the Bill, the duty on the Secretary of State to consulton the provision of probation services is set out in Clause 2(6). But it makes sense for the consultation duty to sit alongside the duty to publish plans, for which a new clause was needed. So AmendmentsNos. 29 and 33 are simply consequential amendments which remove the references to consultation from the existing Clause 2, so allowing them to be moved to the new clause. It is therefore Amendment No. 70 on which we need to focus.
	As to the substance, let me begin with the duty to consult. This is a new development; no such duty exists under the current arrangements. But we see consultation as a crucial part of the process of ensuring that offender and community needs are correctly identified and that the right services are commissioned to meet them. This is not a task for commissioners or probation acting in isolation; we need and we shall seek input from a wide range of stakeholders.
	The question of whether it was desirable to list those stakeholders on the face of the Bill was debated in the other place, where no consensus emerged. Some thought a list would be helpful to highlight the key interests, which seems to be the approach favoured by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, but others feared that such a list might result, however unintentionally, in stakeholders not on the list being marginalised. Although there was general agreement that consultation should be wide, different Members highlighted different stakeholders as being important to the process. Clearly we want to consult the judiciary, trusts and other providers of probation services, and the local authority. We also expect providers of custodial services to be included, as well as other criminal justice agencies and bodies involved in the provision of services that contribute to the reduction of reoffending. I could go on and on—and, probably, on.
	That lack of consensus reflects our own experience in this House last week, when we debated the principles and purposes at some length. In the light of that, we concluded that a list of consultees would not be an especially helpful way to proceed, and that it would be preferable to retain the formulation,
	"such persons as the Secretary of State thinks fit".
	However, we take on board the point made in the other place by the honourable Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, that the position of Wales warranted special consideration, especially in view of the close relationship between probation and other services that are devolved to the Welsh Assembly. I am therefore tabling an amendment that includes subsection (1), a specific requirement on the Secretary of State to include Welsh Ministers in his consultation about probation provision for the following year.
	I turn to the publication of plans, which is dealt with in the remainder of the proposed new clause. This was very much sought after, and we believe it is a helpful addition. If we are to consult our stakeholders on the probation provision required, we also need to communicate our plans for making that provision. We accept that fully, and that is why I am proposing to make statutory provision for it. Subsection (2) places a duty on the Secretary of State, before the end of each year, to publish an annual plan for the following year that sets out the way he—I should say "she"—proposes to ensure the provision of probation services, including any arrangements that he may make himself under Clause 3(4). That plan will include, and be informed by, the results of the consultation.
	Subsection (3) requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the plan as he discharges his functions during the year. In practice, commissioning will be a national, regional and local activity, as I have already indicated. At the national level we will set the overall objectives and targets for the system. At the regional level, where interventions can be delivered more effectively across a region, commissioners will contract directly with providers. In most cases, however, commissioners will contract with lead providers for the delivery of services in a probation area, and that lead provider will then subcontract to other providers where they are better placed to deliver.
	The Secretary of State will discharge his duty under subsection (2) through the publication of national and regional plans. To reinforce the critical importance of the partnership approach as wholly central to the Bill, we anticipate that the national and regional plans will be entitled Commissioning and Partnership Plans—but that is not enough. We also need openness about commissioning at the local level. That is why subsection (4) requires the Secretary of State's contract with a trust to include a requirement to publish its own plans for the following year. Subsection (5) makes clear that, where appropriate, the Secretary of State may place that requirement on a non-public sector provider as well. That will ensure a consistent and coherent approach.
	This is a comprehensive package that addresses the concerns that have been raised about local engagement and openness, and I hope the House will support the amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I shall speak to my Amendments Nos. 31, 32, 72, 76, 80 and 81 in this group. Noble Lords will notice that AmendmentNo. 72 is an amendment to government Amendment No. 70.
	I appreciate that the Government's amendments are intended to meet the commitment given not only by the Minister at Second Reading in this House, but by her right honourable friend Mr Reid at Third Reading in another place in response to amendments tabled by my right honourable and honourable friends. Those amendments were debated in Committee and on Report at some length and would require the probation trusts to prepare annual plans.
	I recognise fully that the government amendment makes improvements to the Bill, particularly because subsection (5) of the Government's proposed new clause on plans requires a non-trust provider of probation services to prepare plans as well as the trusts. However, that provision would not be needed if the Committee were at some future stage in our debates on the Bill to decide to agree to my Amendment No. 48A, which would introduce a new clause after Clause 3. The core government amendment is Amendment No. 70, which introduces a new clause after Clause 6. When I was trying to look at this group of amendments, they became worse than clear as mud, but I shall try to plough on through the mud.
	My Amendment No. 72 is probing and was always intended to be. The Minister will be glad to hear that I shall go very quietly tonight, not just because it is getting late, but because the commitment that she gave on consultation is an assurance which it would be churlish of me to turn down. I accept what she said on that.
	It will be important for the Committee to consider carefully the effect of the Minister's amendments on the way in which this Bill will operate. The changes in drafting will have a substantial impact on how we may wish to address some of our arguments about the importance of local commissioning as opposed to commissioning by the Minister. By accepting the Minister's amendments today, I am not in any way jeopardising my ability to bring forward amendments, which I may wish to press, at a later stage of the Bill. I ensured that my own Amendment No. 48A, which would require trusts to prepare plans, was in a different group. I was advised that this would make sure that the Committee could debate it today even if it accepted the Government's amendment. This is where the procedure becomes as clear as mud.
	I accept that the Minister has brought forward these amendments in good faith. Consultation is important. She said that lists were invidious and that there was a lack of consensus as to who should be consulted. I noticed that she then made her own list and included Welsh Ministers as statutory consultees. All are equal, but some are more equal than others. The Welsh have got their day, but none of them appears to be in the Chamber to celebrate. They have made it into the list, but others have not.
	I do not propose to press my own amendment regarding a list. I shall simply put on the record an explanation why, for example, I have two amendments in two places on the Marshalled List on the same issue. It is simply because I wanted to make sure technically that I addressed both the Bill and the Minister's amendments. My Amendment No. 32 and the final paragraph of Amendment No. 72 would require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the outcome of the consultation that had been undertaken, thereby ensuring that the Secretary of State would pay more than lip service to any consultation procedure. The Minister will recall that we were scathing about the way in which the Home Office dealt with the consultation document Restructuring Probation to Reduce Re-Offending.
	Amendment No. 76 would remove subsection (4) of the new clause, which gives the Secretary of State the power to require a probation trust to produce annual plans where he has entered contractual agreements with the trust under Clause 3(2). That part of Clause 3 gives the Secretary of State the power to make any commissioning arrangements for probation services with anyone whom he chooses.
	Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 are merely consequential on Amendment No. 76. I cannot resist saying at this stage that when the Minister said that Amendments Nos. 29 and 33 were consequential, I think that she meant paving—cart before horse, and all that.
	I tabled Amendment No. 76 to signpost the fact that this is one issue to which we shall need to turn our attention when we debate the core issue of who should be the commissioner of services and where the power should be vested.
	I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the amendments. We shall not necessarily accept all of them at later stages but we accept them today.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 35, 45, 48A and 84. The question I seek to address is: where should the power of commissioning be vested? We say that it should be vested locally whereas the Government say that it should be with the Secretary of State. Earlier today I listened carefully when the Minister moved her local area network agreement amendments. She tried to persuade us that the Government's heart was still beating, that there was no concern that they would override local wishes, that Dr Reid was kind and caring—well, we shall see—and that the Government would deliver these services in a way that complies with local wishes. We heard about local influence, local delivery and local flavour. However, enhancing local flavour does not have much to do with vesting power in local communities. That is where the difference between us lies.
	My amendments are designed to ensure that probation services are primarily commissioned locally by probation trusts and that commissioning is not centralised in the hands of the Secretary of State, who, I agree, may devolve his power of commissioning to a ROM. It may be subcontracted out to somebody to provide the service, but under the Bill the decision-making and control are in the hands of the Secretary of State.
	The amendments would also provide a backstop position whereby the Secretary of State would retain the power to commission services where the trusts fail to do so. That is the fill-the-gap syndrome to make sure that a service is provided. They would leave intact the Government's proposals for the development of contestability as the basis upon which probation services will be provided. I hope that that makes it crystal clear that the Government's stated objective of involving the voluntary and private sectors to a much greater degree can still be met within a system of local commissioning powers.
	We have made it plain throughout our debates here and in another place that we do not oppose the principle of contestability and wish to see it given its chance to prove its worth. We have no philosophical or political objection to probation services being provided from outside the existing public provision. However, we continue to have serious doubts about the Government's ability to develop contestability appropriately. Those doubts are addressed by other amendments, in particular my amendment to introduce the super-affirmative procedure regarding the removal of the protections for core services in Clause 12. Here I concentrate my objections on the Secretary of State's proposals to strip local probation trusts of their powers to use their local knowledge to best advantage and to commission services to meet perceived local needs.
	Last year we saw the Government push through a statutory instrument to change the probation boards into what they term more "business-like" trusts. That was the terminology that they used in the letters that went out to the probation boards. In one breath the Secretary of State says that he wants to make probations trusts "business-like" but in the next he makes it clear that they cannot be trusted to exercise that business-like acumen because he seizes from them the authority to commission services.
	Clause 3 imposes a system under which contracts will be awarded centrally by the Home Secretary or, at best, by the persons to whom he has delegated power—his regional offender managers, who are accountable to him. The line of accountability goes upwards to him. The Bill gives central control over what service provision should be and how it should be delivered. The goalposts in Clauses 1 and 2 are wide and, as we have seen, Clause 1 can be changed by statutory instrument.
	We believe that local trusts are in a far better position than the Secretary of State to identify the types of services that will be required in their area and the agencies or persons from whom those services should be commissioned.
	The difference between us is that the Government are saying that they would take that into account and we are saying that it should be the account of what should happen; they should direct it.
	The Government have acceded to the requests made in both Houses that there should be local authority representation on the trusts; that allows local knowledge and accountability to be fed in through elected members of local authorities. That influence and information falls short of providing the local decision-making that we seek. We have had extensive debates on the nature of probation services throughout both days in Committee, and they have been extremely valuable in highlighting the commitment of this House to making probation services serve our local communities not only well but very well indeed.
	On community sentences, we must put first and foremost the issue of public confidence in the services provided. The offenders are not just people living in their local community; they are seen to be serving sentences that should relate to the effect on the local community. The community needs to have confidence that the offender is being appropriately managed, that the sentence reflects the concern that the local community expresses about crimes committed locally, and that the results of the sentence are likely to be rehabilitation and a reduction of reoffending. If we are to have any hope of extending the use of community sentences widely, there needs to be confidence among members of the judiciary, especially the lay magistracy, that they can impose a community sentence that will be properly administered.
	The Government have so far failed to convince us on these Benches that their centralising model will command the confidence of the public in the delivery of probation services that will serve the needs of their community. I have tabled the amendments to give the Government the opportunity to put a better case. I turn now to the technical explanation of my amendments. I realise that it is late; it is always unfortunate when one reaches the most important group of amendments at such a time, but that is the luck of the draw.
	Amendment No. 34 vests a power in probation trusts to commission probation services. It shadows very closely the Government's drafting for Clause 3 as it was before it was amended, but it ensures that the primary power of commissioning is vested locally, not centrally. It adds a condition that the probation trusts cannot commission services unless and until they have made a plan for the year. As "businesslike" bodies, that should come naturally to them, but we felt that it was right to put the guarantee into the Bill to ensure accountability. Amendment No. 48A sets out our proposed new clause after Clause 3, which gives the detail of that guarantee. It specifically gives the Secretary of State one of our two backstop powers in this group of amendments. If the Secretary of State believes that the trust's plan does not provide for sufficient services, he can modify it.
	Amendment No. 35 provides the main backstop power for the Secretary of State. Where services are not provided under our proposed new clause after Clause 2, he may either provide those services himself or commission others to do so, either by contract, partnership or any other means appropriate. We are trying to be as flexible as the Government alwayssay one should be. Amendment No. 45 removesClause 3(5), the Government's definition of a provider of probation services. Amendment No. 84 inserts a new clause before Clause 7 detailing our own definition of a provider of probation services. We had to provide a new definition because it has to fit in with our package of amendments to enable local commissioning of services, but it also covers a situation where the Secretary of State exercises his backstop power and either commissions services or provides them himself.
	The Minister and her Bill team will have noticed that the amendments in this group are very different from and much more comprehensive than those tabled by my right honourable friends and honourable friends in another place, but they have the same objective of achieving local commissioning while ensuring that the Secretary of State retains a backstop power. They have been drafted in an attempt to amend the Bill in such a way as to make it workable. I realise that the amendments tabled in another place would not have had the right effect. They had the right intention and they had the heart, but they did not have the body to carry it out. I wish to give the Committee an opportunity to consider these amendments so that I may listen carefully to comments and consider how they should best be dealt with between now and Report. I anticipate that they will require some redesign. In the mean time, I beg to move.

Lord Ramsbotham: I strongly support theconcept of the amendment, which is hugely helpful in setting out what we mean by "local" and the "local commissioning process". First, I am extremely glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, drew attention to the essential matter of confidence. We know that, time after time, one reason why community sentences are not regarded by the local population with any degree of satisfaction is that there is no confidence that they are doing what is required with the offender in return for what the offender has done. Confidence is critical and will be developed if people have ownership or feel that they are part of what is being done. All experience shows that local ownership is more likely to produce confidence about something directed from the remoteness of Whitehall.
	Secondly, I am extremely glad that the noble Baroness introduced the subject of MAPPA. There is no doubt that the leadership of MAPPA by the Probation Service is one of the successes of that process. Chief probation officers say that, in their experience, other organisations come in with them and they are developing the co-operation about which we have talked because of their leadership of this hugely important process.
	I am also very glad that in her Amendment No. 84 the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, includes national commissioning, which must not be forgotten. Perhaps I may give an example of why I think national commissioning is important. Citizens Advice is a very important part of the whole resettlement process. It would seem logical for there to be a CAB outstation in every single prison involved in resettling prisoners, possibly with Probation Service links as well. However, under the present arrangements, that is not possible and governors have to negotiate individually with CABs. So here is a need for a national commissioning let-out. Therefore, I am extremely glad that, while Amendment No. 84 focuses on the earlier details of the local aspect, it does not leave out the fact that there are certain national and regional aspects as well. We all agree that this partnership is not just between the public, private and voluntary sectors; it includes wider as well as narrower, local elements to reinforce the local aspect. The CAB, for example, deals locally with local matters, even though there is a national requirement to have bureaux everywhere.
	These are extremely helpful amendments and I sincerely hope that the Minister will at least be able to acknowledge them and consider them very seriously.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I, too, have a great deal of sympathy with these amendments and particularly with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone. I am particularly concerned about who will be serving on the probation boards or trusts. I hope that we will begin to hear the Minister's reactions on that.
	The need for confidence—the confidence of local people—has been mentioned. The word confidence has come back; it partly echoes what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, was saying yesterday about the authority that those undertaking probation services must have to do their job properly.
	I question the meaning of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, pointed out that there was a "may" in the government amendments whereas she was looking for a "must" as regards entering into partnerships in order to make them effective. Proposed new subsection (2) of the new clause states:
	"Probation boards and probation trusts may make contractual or other arrangements with any other person for the making of the probation provision",
	but proposed new subsection (3) states:
	"Arrangements under subsection (2) may in particular authorise or require that other person"
	to do (a), (b) and (c). Is the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, requiring that, in certain circumstances, there will be that formal "must" as regards the authority? That is certainly what I would like and it is why I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, said.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for tabling these amendments. As she said, they give me an opportunity to make the case more clearly. I take her point about confidence in the system, a point which was echoed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Linklater and Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I say to all those who have spoken—including the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who spoke so forcefully—that we, too, understand the importance of locally commissioned services. We believe that the framework on which we have embarked is the right one. Responding to the amendment also gives me an opportunity to discuss in more detail how we intend to implement the provisions of the Bill. In so doing, I hope that I can dispel a few of the myths that have built up around our proposals. I hope that I can make clear that we are not as divided on this issue as it might first appear.
	I am conscious of the time. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, says, it is unfortunate that her important amendment is being considered so late. However, I think that I have to give her the courtesy of replying now. I know that she wishes to consider it before taking matters further.
	As we discussed, Clause 2 gives the Secretary of State the responsibility for ensuring sufficient provision for probation services. Clause 3 sets out how he may go about this. It enables the Secretary of State to make contractual or other arrangements with any other person for the making of probation provision. Before I turn to the amendments, however, noble Lords may find it useful if I speak in a little detail about what the clause is intended to achieve and how we propose to implement it. I do not think that the three tiers of commissioning are well understood. At the national level, the overall objectives, standards and targets for the system are set. At the regional level, contract management, probation trusts, prisons and purchase of the interventions that are more effectively delivered across a whole region are managed. At the local level we have the purchasing interventions that the offender managers need to deliver their sentence plans. That is the framework.
	Currently, 42 local boards are each required to make provision for all services in their individual area, working centrally to set targets. We want to move from this to an approach based on commissioning. This is the process of identifying and then securing the services needed to reduce reoffending and protect the public. As I indicated, commissioning will be national, regional and local. Within the framework, although most services will be commissioned locally, some will be better commissioned at the regional level. Last week, the noble Lady, Baroness Howarth—who is not in her place today—shared with us the difficulties that an organisation such as the Faithfull Foundation, doing specialist work with sex offenders, can experience with local commissioning. Regional commissioners also have a key role in strategic partnership working, operating alongside other regional bodies such as strategic health authorities to ensure that the full range of services are available to tackle reoffending—a theme the importance of which several noble Lords highlighted both last week and today.
	In touching on that, I should correct myself. When we were talking earlier about the work undertaken by Sarah Payne in the south-east, I had neglected to recall that Dr Jo Nurse is a consultant attached to the Government Office for the South East, specialising in public health. That is how she comes to look at those issues. As I say, however, most services will be commissioned locally by lead providers operating within a framework agreed with the regional commissioner. They will deliver some services in-house and subcontract for others, ensuring that they have the best available services to meet the needs identified in the offender's sentence plan. That will help to guard against the fragmentation which some have feared by ensuring that the regional commissioners are not, in fact, holding myriad small contracts with lots of providers. It will maintain local engagement because commissioners at local level are best placed to understand the needs of their local community, and it will help to protect the position of small voluntary sector organisations. The Bill will enable us to ensure the right balance between those different levels.
	I am struck by how the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, seem to be intended to achieve similar outcomes to our proposals. As she explained, her amendments are intended to ensure that probation services are commissioned locally. On that, as I have already made clear, we are agreed. However, I hope she will forgive me for saying that I do not think that her amendments would create a workable model. They would create a situation where the statutory duty to provide probation services rests with the Secretary of State, but he has the power to make arrangements only if they have not been made by probation boards or probation trusts. In particular, the model provides no clarity of responsibility or accountability for the provision of probation services and the relationship between the provider and the Secretary of State is unclear. It is also unclear under what circumstances and on what basis the Secretary of State would intervene to commission services directly. The apparent presumption in favour of the public sector cuts across our presumption in favour of the best available provider.
	I heard what the noble Baroness said about not being antipathetic to commissioning or contestability, but I say as gently as I can that that is not apparent in the amendments. It is unclear how the structure proposed by her amendments will enable other providers to make a full contribution. As I have already said, it is not enough to say, "Just give the powers to probation boards and they will do it," because we know that that is not sufficient. The fact of the matter is that probation boards have the power now to make arrangements with others to deliver services on their behalf, yet the current sub-contracting rate of only 3.6 per cent of services seems to show that they are not choosing to do so. I simply cannot believe that the public sector probation service is best placed to deliver 96 per cent of probation services. I referred to this in an earlier part of the debate when I said that probation services have tended to hold too much to themselves. We know that there are others who can share that burden with them.
	As I have already made clear, that is why we need the powers in the Bill to ensure that a greater range of providers is enabled to play a part and to enable the public sector to focus on its strengths, which are considerable. We also need to be able to commission across geographical and organisational boundaries where that makes sense; for example, where a specialist service might be more effectively delivered across a region than on an individual area basis or where it could sensibly span the prison/custody divide.
	Commissioning enables us to ensure that services are delivered by the best available provider according to local needs. We can ensure that the work of professional probation officers is supplemented by other sectors enabling them to concentrate on making end-to-end offender management a reality. We can do so with absolute clarity, setting out clearly in contract what is expected from every provider.
	That brings me to the question of plans, which we discussed under the previous amendments. In our amendment, we set out a comprehensive set of provisions for plans to be published by the Secretary of State, probation trusts and any other provider so designated by the Secretary of State. The relationship between the plans is clear, reflecting the clarity of the relationships between the providers themselves, and offers a consistent and coherent approach. Further provisions are therefore unnecessary.
	As I mentioned earlier, there is really not as much dividing us as the noble Baroness might think. We actually want the same outcomes, but I am afraid that the model that she proposes offers a recipe for confusion with no clarity on who is responsiblefor delivering what and for whom. That is not a basis for improving performance or making an even better impact on reducing reoffending. I say that with a note of surprise because in all the work that I have done with the noble Baroness, she has always insisted on asking who, what, when and for how long. Therefore, when I come to draft and work with my officials, I always have her clearly in my mind. I know the questions that she is going to ask me and how I must answer her. As gently as I can, I say to her that I am surprised that she has not followed her own rubric.
	Clause 3 provides a sensible set of options to make arrangements for the delivery of probation services. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
	What she proposes is a situation very similar to that which we currently have, but without the clarity. At the moment, we have the 42 independent local probation boards, the Secretary of State with a reserve power to intervene, but only in the case of failure, and the boards now commission 96 per cent. The system that she intends to put in place is almost the same as that which we have now but without the safeguards.
	Our system is very different. We think that we have the local balance right. We think that many changes have been beneficial—the plans being written into the Bill; making it clear how we will commission; the issue of accountability; and the issue of consultation. Those are all very important amendments and improvements that we have crafted together in the other place and, now, here.
	I hope that I have given the noble Baroness a huge amount to think about and have persuaded her that I have followed her advice and that we now have the system right.